Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues.

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Should a blackout be organized in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's actions?

RfC: Should a blackout be organized in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's actions?

As I write, the ratio of oppose to support is nearly 2:1. It would require roughly 60 more supports without a single new oppose just to gain parity, and that does not appear likely. It is clear that it does not have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of gaining the kind of strong consensus that would be needed for such an action, so I am boldly closing the RfC as unsuccessful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Should the English Wikipedia blackout all of the site for 2-3 days in protest of this?

Option A: Yes
Option B: No

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For further information, please see WP:OPENLETTER2024, Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, and previous Signpost coverage. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics

Clarifications were asked regarding the specifics of the blackout below. It is a worldwide blackout of the Article and Article talk namespaces (including the Main Page), for 48 hours. The blackout is in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's choice to comply with the court order and divulge the personal information of editors under a sealed cover. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sealed cover" means that the court, but not the public, will have access to the personal information of the editors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the shortened timeframe we are dealing with (a four-day deadline imposed by the court order), this RfC can be closed 24 hours from now, as discussed prior at Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. (Striking per WP:CONLEVEL concerns. 19:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Support (blackout)

Yes. I don't have anything else to add that I haven't already said elsewhere. We need to provide a strong show of force against our colleagues' safety being endangered. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Having read through people's reasoning for both support and oppose, as well as Jimbo's comments, I'm changing my vote to a conditional support. I specifically support @Theleekycauldron's version of the proposal, which specifies that a blackout would be in protest of the court's orders rather than the WMF, and that it would take place only in the event of compliance with the disclosure order. I worry that people are missing the forest for the trees and just trying to have a dig at the WMF; that shouldn't be what this is about, we need to be centring the safety of our colleagues and our opposition to censorship. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why protesting against the court when it's just doing its job? Why not protest ANI? Nakonana (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why protest just ANI when other Indian news organizations have also been problematic? The Indian media environment as a whole has deteriorated.

Indian law shouldn't scare Wikipedia editors who haven't done anything wrong. If the Indian courts do not force disclosure on an unproven accusation, and say they will protect Wikipedia editors, they will reassure us. HLHJ (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic is a huge understatement. The largest editor in India directly gets some of it's news from the state media of a large nation and alt right influencers on X. Nohorizonss (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sets precedent in which others could pull the same stunt and intimidate editors who are speaking the truth •Cyberwolf•talk? 13:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could set the opposite precedent. The court decides. ANI might get nothing but a reprimand and a bill for the court costs. HLHJ (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May sound like conspiracy but it’s valid. The Indian government is extremely corrupt and ani has state connections I guarantee you ani is bribing New Delhi courts to get what they want its common in India to bribe government officials those officials get thrown out the next ones do the same thing see Corruption in India •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protesting ANI and other news organizations definitely makes more sense (and might have more chances of actually changing something about the (in)dependency of Indian press) than protesting WMF, who has no influence on law making / news making in India, or the Indian court, who is just doing its job when a suit is filed and who hasn't even yet ruled that defamation actually happened. Nakonana (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: Yes Taken in isolation, the WMF actions with regards to ANI might not seem severe. Taken as precedent, amid ongoing serious Internet safety issues, the WMF action is deeply troubling. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per above and the fact that this could attract loads of attention to our cause. E_F⁵ 17:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A site-wide blackout is an option that should only be used in the most severe situations. This is one of those situations. The disclosure of editors' private information is an irreversible step that will severely damage our editorial independence. We must not let even the suggestion of such a disclosure stand unopposed. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the opposers have brought up valid concerns with this proposal. I am not convinced to oppose, but I am now neutral on the blackout. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes In an age of rising fascism, threats to the flow of open knowledge are a direct attack on what we do. The sacrosanct handling of private editor information is a safeguard against authoritarianism and harassment, preventing widespread chillings effects at least, and imprisonment of good faith editors at the worst. We must alert the public that the project they love is at stake. Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes absolutely. ResonantDis_tortion 17:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Disclosing editors' personal information for performing normal editorial actions is an irrevocable step that has the potential to threaten the safety of those editors, and will only lead to an escalation of requests for such disclosure in future. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes however I personally feel it should ONLY cover mainspace and talk. Userpages and project space should be left alone. If only to allow for communication, lest it ends up off-project. As that's not an option here tho. I am a EXTREMELY strong yes. I have also posted a link to this page in the discord as I believe this needs as many eyes as possible. May the 12 help us. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a well-reasoned caveat, and worthy a parallel subthread to authorize those carveouts once we have a good sense of which way the community is leading on the core issue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree a united community response is best in this case as all other ways of communication have failed.--A09|(talk) 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The implications for the future of this project and movement are weighty, and there are non-trivial risks to the persons whose identities will be disclosed. There has been clear community will expressed over recent weeks that almost every (if not in fact every) editor who has weighed in on whether the WMF should disclose this situation has said that they are at least in principle opposed to that choice of action. Nevertheless, it appears that the WMF is determined to forge ahead rather than run the risk of losing their rights to appeal the case or lose their intermediary status in India. Well, bluntly, neither of those outcomes is to be avoided as strenously as the one the WMF would elect for here, with it's many risks to our volunteers and the project itself. And all for a case they stand a strong chance of losing in any event, given the court's amenability to receiving questionable statements from ANI as if they are established truth, even be it under a prima facie analysis.
And win or lose, once other parties realize they can intimidate and cajole editors with SLAP suits, and that the WMF will hand them PII on those editors, all controversial India-related subject matter articles will become unmanageable messes and black holes that invite litigation and drive away neutral volunteer editors. Bluntly, I am mystified by the WMFs strategic reasoning on this one, and deeply concerned that if they were considering such disclosures in such circumstances, they never approached the community to get a broader survey of the movement's labourers on the advisability of such actions, before the cases became live. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The court's order, if successful, will have a chilling effect on movement-wide participation, especially from editors who come from areas of the world where editing actually carries risks. See List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia. I would most support this if there were a message on the blacked-out screen saying why it was blacked out, which would prevent readers from assuming that it was because of technical issues.JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 17:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - This is an existential threat to the project due to the obvious chilling effect it will have on editors from India. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes! Per above; desperate times call for desperate measures. Babysharkboss2!! ^(XXX) 18:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've previously opposed action but as the case has progressed, I've become ever more acutely aware of what's at risk due to the precedent this sets. To disclose this info, even if just to the court, is a gross violation of the trust many editors place in the WMF. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes But I'm highly unlikely to be brave enough to use my own interface admin rights to implement it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Nothing I can say better than those above! GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes The enwiki database should be locked during the blackout preventing any contributions. Morten Haan 🥐 talk • skin draft 18:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The WMF has before stood up to countries whose courts pander to locals complaining about “defamation” where it’s simply reporting facts that are true, or are sourced to other reliable sources. It is appalling that they are choosing to allow three editors to face personal legal liability for simply adding/readding cited information. The site should be blacked out until the foundation reverses course or clearly explains why they think the users facing personal liability is okay in this case. And no, “we will pay your legal fees to defend yourself” is not a valid excuse to force them to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised and frankly appalled at the number of editors here who seem to think it's acceptable for us to wait to take action until after they irreversibly reveal these three editors' personal information to a court that has openly stated that they'll allow ANI to get that information and sue those editors personally. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The chilling effect on editors is already present. It's very telling that Jimbo keeps telling us to "trust him" ignoring the fact that every statement we have (from the WMF themselves and the court records as reported by reliable sources) says we have no reason to trust them and that they intend to release the editors' information or at least serve them personally with a lawsuit.
The time to take a stand for our fellow editors is before they are irrevocably harmed - not waiting until the WMF does something they can't undo and then we say "oh no we disagree booooo". The cat will be out of the bag. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - this is an existential threat to Wikipedia, a blackout is appropriate. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We cannot let the WMF's action stand. owuh (talk | she/her) 18:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with sadness. I certainly hoped a step like this could be avoided, but it seems it can't be. WMF's actions have even emboldened others to threaten not only legal action but physical violence. [1] They will certainly encourage more of these SLAPP lawsuits, now that people know they can get what they want from them and intimidate editors through them. If WMF discloses to the court, "sealed cover" or otherwise, that means it's out of their hands and the court could release that information to anyone they want, any time they want. WMF should have drawn a red line from the beginning, and it's damn well time they do it right now, before the identities of the editors in question are placed at risk. If that means WMF pulls out of India, WMF needs to pull out of India. If that means India blocks Wikipedia, India blocks Wikipedia. WMF helping someone to harass editors for editing articles with well-sourced information must never happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm up for that.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think personal information should be kept that way.Dagriffpatchfan (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Would love to replace the Mainpage with the original text of the office-suppressed article, but I guess that won't fly... Fram (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full support I only share my personal information with who I want/am willing to share it with. fanfanboy (block_talk) 18:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, support Fuck bullies, and to fuck with enabling them. SerialNumber54129 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Only way to get many people to notice. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Best way to raise awareness. Anonymous Octopus (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with reluctance and disappointment. I'm pretty pro-Foundation comparatively, but I cannot countenance the disclosure apparently acquiesced to by Legal. Yall saw the violent extremist on one of the admin boards concurrent with the period when the Indian editor whose information is set to be disclosed was communicating to us fearfully at VPI, right? This editor – our colleague – may face serious legal and physical harm for essentially reverting bad COI edits. In this circumstance, I'm willing to support any measure necessary to convince Legal not to comply with the court order. Folly Mox (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've seen a lot of funding stuff pop up on the project lately. A blackout will have a financial impact on the WMF. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This threatens and will edge US child privacy laws if this sets a dark precedent. If wikimedia gives out any personal information of any users what will the courts do if said users were out of their jurisdiction. Extradition. Jail time. Fines. Don’t let them control us also what about Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are that says “we only are governed by California state laws and us federal law’ •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I`m an active user of Russian Wikipedia and don`t know have I right to vote here. As I understand. Today we give information about users to Indian court, tomorrow -- to putin`s regime, day after tomorrow -- to any regime, even if it makes cannibalism like Bocassa. Community has to say "we disagree with such way of Wikipedia`s evolution or degradation". --Ibidem (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You of course can vote after all its all editors •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The actions of the foundation puts all editors at danger, and editors in some country in serious risk of government harassment and imprisonment. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We are number one in free information, and blacking ourselves out should give everyone a chance to see for themselves a world without that free information, a scenario that we are highly concerned could become permanent in the world's largest country with internet freedom. Also, it's just two to three days, we all can wait. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Agree with above comments on concerns about the precedent this sets especially as more nations slip towards authoritarianism and against free speech. Don't obey in advance. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The moral measure of a community is how it treats its most vulnerable. While it is outside of our power, as editors, to protect our own in India, we can at least get into good trouble for them. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beautifully put. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support/yes - I don't know how we're even going to agree on "we're closed" text but I've always thought we should do more to raise awareness of the situation with those guys in prison in Saudi Arabia. It's gonna be a good couple of days for WikiWand. Also since we don't have a PR department we better have a pretty comprehensive "why we are doing this" message somewhere bc the media will want to cover and there will be inchoate screaming from the rest of the interwebs. jengod (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of the most doable, and hopefully effective, ways to take a stand on this. Reddit clarifies why beggars CAN'T be choosers. On the other hand, Wikipedia clarifies why editors CAN be choosers!!! (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I would much prefer if the messaging was more against ANI than WMF's legal team. WMF are not run by idiots, they are trying to deal with a scumbag organisation seeking to at the very least turf them out of India. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also, wouldn't compliance violate GDPR in the EU? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)
Changed to oppose. Yes, tentatively. I don't know how much impact this will have on the safety of the editors in the current situation, but I believe that if this gets enough media coverage we will set a precedent for the WMF to not let this happen again. My primary concern is the technical implementation, especially considering that an office action could take place to prevent this. Either way, we need to make our voices heard. I really don't want to set a precedent that Wikipedia will tolerate having our editors put at risk in this way. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment: I don't fully support a total blackout (I'd rather have a banner on all pages spreading awareness of the case), but this is the only RfC calling for action so I suppose it's better than nothing. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 21:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am from Russia and I understand very well: if we do not resist, then we will cease to be respected; if I do not resist, then I will not respect myself. We must support our colleagues and protect them from danger. --VladimirPF (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing not for myself, but for an editor who doesn't feel safe contributing to this thread onwiki. They say the RfC should resolve with a consensus to blackout only if the WMF complies, which would in effect discourage the Foundation from complying but not directly interfere with the case. (It's not that the blacking out would be the deterrent, it would be the threat of one.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Yes. We need to bring this to the public eye if it occurs, this could destroy the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsmasher678 (talk • contribs) 19:59, November 14, 2024 (UTC)
Yes even if no disclosure has been made yet. 3df (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: if the choice really is between disclosing editors' data to an oppressive regime and pulling out of the country ruled by such regime, the Foundation should do the latter. Otherwise we cannot pretend being an objective and full encyclopedia. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes This current case is a threat to the freedom of editing Wikipedia, and the ramifications long-term could be devastating. I understand that many editors may not consider this case to be that serious, but it could well be the start of deterring editors from editing certain pages if there are legal ramifications for doing so. A blackout would help draw critical attention to the case that has received very limited coverage by reliable sources, and could help draw support for the benefit of all editors as well as those concerned. CNC (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Fascism has to be fought at every place possible. Allowing any sort of corporation at all to stick their foot in the door leads to a huge "slippery slope"- if the WMF goes through with this- where does it end after that? most likely nowhere. Sandcat555 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Important to send a message about the implications and consequences of this court action. Gamaliel (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now on my own terms and per Levivich. If this is the consequence of doing business in India, than the WMF should not do business in India and Wikipedia should be blocked there. Let the world know—that is what you can do if you're a global encyclopedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support That WMF will provide counsel for the outed editors is not enough to avoid a chilling effect, not even close. We need to be as loud as possible about corporate censorship. Paradoctor (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes It could be you next.--Laun chba ller 21:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've thought about this carefully, and I've read all of the oppose arguments and all of the discussions below. I do not believe that this action would harm the WMF's ability to deal with the court in India. It looks to me like the blackout will make it clear that this is coming from the community, and not from WMF Legal. And I reject, in this specific instance, the arguments that Wikipedia's role as a source of information should outweigh the reasons for the protest. I might have felt differently before the recent US election, but I think we all have to come to terms about the English-speaking world in which we live today. If we do not leverage our sway with the general public over what is happening in India, now, it won't stop there. The President-elect of the largest English-speaking nation is dedicated to retribution against his perceived critics, and has chosen someone as his Attorney General who is a slap in the face to anyone believing in respect for legal norms. It's just a matter of time before Wikipedia gets requests for the names of editors who worked on pages that do not present certain aspects of US government in the ways that the government would prefer. I've read what editors have explained about "under seal" and, while I am willing to believe that WMF attorneys are trying to do the right thing, it seems to me that the identities of the editors from India are now in jeopardy. We have an outing policy here, and we have compelling reasons to insist that editor anonymity be protected. Editors need to take First they came ... to heart before opposing this blackout. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. While I personally think a blackout is too much too preemptively (a large banner would create public awareness and media coverage just the same), awareness needs to be brought to this case. Even if the WMF can't do anything about the Delhi high court, we need to set precedent that this is not acceptable and that we can and will leverage our power as editors to oppose censorship. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 21:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: it is false to say that the blackout would harm Wikipedia's reputation. It would be received badly by a few people, received well by even more people, and just looked at with interest and learning by most people. And it's equally false to argue that we need more time. We know enough now, and hoping for some good news that will save us the effort of taking action is futile. Editors who fuss over why we should not do anything will come to regret that, when they become the targets of the next attack. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel so strongly about this, and I want to say some more things. I take Jimmy Wales very seriously, and I'm hearing what he says here. But he is wrong about this being misguided. The editing community needs to speak clearly and loudly about our values concerning the protections of editors from harassment or intimidation. That's not undermining what WMF attorneys need to do, and it's not harmful to our "brand" as an information source. It enhances what we should stand for, as a free encyclopedia that operates in freedom. Also, this blackout isn't about changing what the court in India will do. They probably don't care. But that doesn't matter. This is about communicating with the general public. The public needs to know about this. And that's a part of what we, as editors, are here for: giving the public the information that they need and seek. This is an encyclopedic thing to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this proposal is likely to fail. Editors who are opposing it remind me of the people who didn't want to ask Biden to step aside, because of the supposed need to respect procedure. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to make things personal. The problem are not your fellow Wikipedians, but ANI who filed that nonsensical lawsuit (and potentially the lack of integrity of the Indian court system). Nakonana (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, I really do. But this is incredibly frustrating to me. And it's not making it personal to point out reasoning that is terribly, terribly wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is how the court will interpret such a blackout. They might actually hold it against WMF. So, it's our current actions that might lead to WMF losing the case. We really should be careful what we're doing. Emotional decisions and actions are rarely good decisions and actions. Nakonana (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate issue than what I said about Biden. But I doubt that the court will even care. (As I said earlier, for me this is more about educating the public, and drawing a line before this problem spreads further, even though I'm also terribly worried on behalf of those editors in India.) I'm OK with making a decision based on weighing the likely outcomes, but I don't want us to be paralyzed until it's too late, out of unnecessary fear. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is gonna fail, and I respect consensus. But we are also here to have a discussion, to freely exchange ideas, and so I'm going to add some more comments to my rationale. I see a lot of talk about how WMF Legal must obey the law, and how that should be a reason why we should refrain from saying anything publicly. But if one looks at the history of free speech under the law, there is a long and honorable history of journalists choosing to go to jail, rather than to reveal their sources. Don't get me wrong: I don't want anyone from WMF to go to jail. But the idea that history looks favorably on those who dutifully obey legal commands, even if that means throwing anonymous contributors under the bus, does not hold up under scrutiny. I'm not calling for going to jail, but I am calling for the community to make a conspicuous public statement, to let the public know. I also see way too many editors asking that we wait. This is a recipe for disaster. If we wait until the editors from India are actually exposed and facing danger, it will be shamefully late. Just as when some US newspapers pulled their editorials endorsing Harris, out of fear and preemptive obedience, we risk doing the same, out of a misguided desire not to draw attention to ourselves. Some editors say that this is about WP:POINT. Well, standing up for the values that underlie our outing policy is the point, and it's a valid one. And some editors argue that we should not blackout Wikipedia because the court wants to black out our content. That sounds clever on the surface, but it's glib and wrong. The court has no interest in shutting us down. They just want to censor a small amount of content that a corrupt organization wants to suppress. And we would not be censoring our own content. We would be making our vast number of readers aware of what it would mean if we stopped living up to the claim of being a free encyclopedia that everyone is free to edit. As I said, I realize that this is failing. But there will soon be a time when we will look back on this, and regret that we didn't act sooner. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes They wanna take it far let's go far, let's not let fascists dictate the site and compromise the safety of editors. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as this is a red line that should not be crossed and will set a chilling precedent for litigation happy corporations and undemocratic regimes to exploit, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: 1) editors' private data must not be allowed to be used as a bargaining chip; 2) the WMF has a duty to protect the anonymity of its volunteer editors; 3) the political neutrality of Wikipedia must be protected; and 4) there are few other ways for the editing community to get the public's or the WMFs attention. I would be appalled if it were my data being handed to a court because I happen to have edited a particular article. Baffle☿gab 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; we need to both take the issue to the public eye and show the WMF we're serious. And this is an issue much bigger than one court case; it sets a dangerous precedent. Look at me; I'm using lots of semicolons; you should listen to my opinion. However, to clarify: I only support a blackout after the handing over of the documents. Otherwise it would be premature. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes We must do everything possible to show WMF how we feel about this. Simonm223 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I originally brought this idea up as a one off on Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), not thinking it would resort to this. It's the only way the WMF might listen. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The WMF has given us no indication at this point that they don't actually plan to comply and have been actively cagey about answering any questions in regards to the situation. That can't be answered with just "we're in a court case, so we can't discuss the details", particularly when legal reporting on the case is actively saying that the WMF plans to comply. By this point, when they haven't given any indication to us otherwise or even acknowledged the almost 900 strong petition, I don't trust their choice of actions in the coming days. And I do consider giving up the three editors' email addresses, which may have identifying information or even be their full legal names depending on the person, to be just as serious of a personal information breach as anything else. We need to take an action here that is actually noticeable, to both the general public and which the WMF can't just ignore. The press from such an action would also be useful in dealing with this over-reaching judge. Silver seren^C 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes This would not only pressure the WMF, it would hugely amplify the Streisand effect, leading ANI to possibly realise that its best option is damage reduction: withdraw the court case rather than guarantee that billions of people learn what WP:RS verifiably say about it. Just to be clear to any Delhi lawyers reading this: the "damage" is either, depending on whether you trust the sources or not, ANI's fault or the sources' fault, respectively: you, the reader, decide. Wikipedia - and WMF - hold no responsibility for ANI, nor for the sources. Boud (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was initially apprehensive over the risks of getting this on board, since it may potentially damage our reputation as a website with American audiences, especially since the winning majority voted for a president and party who exploits free speech through misinformation and intense legal action. But if the WMF still hasn't decided to not disclose the information of the editors centered in the conflict, that's a far more brutal risk in not calling for a blackout than if we did. The Foundation needs to confirm, explicitly, that they are not and will not disclose the three editors' personal info, and thus will not allow any chance for disclosing anyone else's. And they have not done that yet, despite much waiting.
How big of a voice do we have to show to tell them to knock it off? Looks like this could be our biggest. If they're unwilling to hear from the community in time, so be it, we'll give our hardest efforts for it anyway whether we win or lose. From my personal experience and those of various editors, if the WMF has broken enough good faith for us to safely assume they'll be communicative with us, there's no reason to kneel to them now. Whatever it takes to reinforce a better connection.
Whatever consequences will arise (including banning Wikipedia from India altogether), it's more than worth it because this community is defined by having no exceptions for allowing this vulnerability, and it's better off letting Indian readers grow a little more and show redemption for us like a good appeal from a banned editor. And for the nationalists opposing us? I say they can suck it, and suck it good.
Also wanted to shout out a thank you to Tryptofish for their strident optimism, which aided my confidence a bit. I salute you. Carlinal (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Be confident! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It disturbs me greatly that the WMF would even consider complying with an order to out the identities of their site's contributors. MarijnFlorence (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if it raises awareness Nswix (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Support blackout. Even considering complying is troubling, indeed. Wait? OK, sure, let's wait and be patient, that's really not a problem. Enjoy a black screen in the meantime.Mushy Yank (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes We must black out the site to show the WMF and the Indian courts that we will not tolerate personal information being leaked during a company's tantrum over being criticised. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm worried the scope of this proposal is far too limited. Blacking out only the English Wikipedia would not achieve our goals. O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Per this court order. WMF will be submitting the details in a couple of days and ANI can request disclosure of the same.- Ratnahastin (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, turning over any personal information on Wikipedia editors to the Delhi court is a red line that should never be crossed, and would be a massive betrayal of everything our movement claims to stand for. The line must be drawn here to quote fictional starship captain Jean-Luc Picard. Abzeronow (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this measure to protest the absolutely unprecedented actions by the WMF. Passenger pigeon (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A ton of bricks 03:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Disclosing personal info vs blocking Wikipedia in India, I think the latter should be done. Surprised WMF is doing the former. We need to blackout to protest and raise awareness. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 04:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes Colida247 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with an indefinite blackout until the matter is resolved. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I don't see another way of bringing more attention to this and make a statement. Cortador (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes seems like the best way to show the world what's happening, and the fact the WMF are considering complying with revealing volunteers information. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is owned by WMF, they could do what they choose to. We editors are volunteers by our choice. Could we really dictate/advise/order/force them? Hemacho328wsa (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: despite taking about "we editors", this user has never contributed any edit to any Wikipedia article. They are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to argue in favour of the Indian government/courts. Cortador (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador, Again, could you stop trying to double guess the reason people are voting here. It is uncivil to accuse people of not being here to build an encyclopaedia when you have no idea what the reason is. - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per everything already stated. Johnson524 09:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Well very well (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Гриня12 (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support this. Protecting the contributions of contributors is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. When contributors are attacked by external forces that we have no control over (governments, media, etc.), that's one thing. When contributors are handed over to be dealt with by those who are supposed to protect them - the Wikimedia Foundation - that's another. It turns out that they are ready to send honest editors to prison for their own selfish interests. If they do that, no one will feel safe.
And a protest in the form of a blackout is what can force the Foundation to change its position. Such an action would have no effect on external players, like governments (they would be happy with the self-blocking), but for the Foundation such a decision would be very sensitive. Всеслав Чародей (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per above, especially Tryptofish. At a time when censorship and dictators are on the rise, we need to take a stand. Relinus (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think it would bring more attention to this Tdcccl (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The WMF must remember its priorities, which should not be headed by "throw editors under the bus to avoid legal hassles". And there does not seem to be sufficient time to communicate this in a more measured way, seeing as they are already busy lobbing identification data to the court. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: You forgot to fact-check that claim. Polygnotus (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to doubt this. Since the WMF has stated they will comply, this is what they are complying with. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: You haven't read Jimbo's earlier comment about that? And this one? And Quiddity's comment?. Both have been here for 2 decades. Quiddity works for the WMF, so he knows what he is talking about, and Jimbo is the only person in this list. People are !voting here based on complete misinformation. Polygnotus (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I had indeed not seen Jimbo's comment. All right then, he does not usually prevaricate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Jesus you love badgering dont you •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes : this was unnacceptable and unthoughtful of wmf. Even as an Indian myself, I've long been an admirer of this site and it is really sad to see the events unfolding at the moment. zoglophie^•talk• 16:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: Per everything stated above. A community driven effort at free and open knowledge being silenced by government must be protested. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support This isn't going to pass anyway, so consider this a moral support. Osama Khalid is currently in prison for 30 years for editing Wikipedia, so I don't have super high hopes about these editors not being outed. Whatever happened to WP:No legal threats? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--Bramfab (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Transgenderoriole (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and committing wikicide _Dial^mayo 19:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think the main benefit of a blackout is that it would bring wider attention to the case. The number of Wikipedia lurkers far exceeds the number of active editors, and this is a quick way to make the former group invested in the case. – MW_(t•c) 19:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it is the moral and right thing to do. Requesting that the WMF do the moral and right thing for the project has not worked in the past - it does tend to require action, or at least the promise of action. I want to be clear that I am voting here as a protest against WMF's actions in complying with a request that undermines our integrity and safety (not a protest against the Indian court, which I respect). The two most important issues here are the integrity of WMF, and the safety of our colleagues. The WMF's response should be that if the court wants to sue someone, then they can sue WMF. The WMF has plenty enough money to pay any resulting fine or compensation to the injured party and/or to the court. Unfortunately, the WMF lawyers are there to protect WMF and its staff, not to protect the volunteers who work on Wikipedia, and of course they would advise their client or employer (whatever the relationship is) to provide the confidential and personal details of our colleagues rather than pay any fines. That's their job. Our role here is to call that out, and say that as a community we do not wish for our colleagues' personal information to be handed over to any court when all they have done is contribute legally to an encyclopaedia based on public information gained from reliable sources. The total amount demanded in the defamation case is less than half of what WMF collect in donations EVERY DAY! But, rather than give that up, they prefer to betray our colleagues, and wash their hands of any financial liability. The principle here is that until the court can show that any individual who contributed to the page has actually defamed anyone - that anyone has broken any law - that their innocence and their right to privacy and safety should be respected. Let the court first prove that any potentially defamatory statements were originated on that Wikipedia page rather than summarised from a publicly available statement on a reliable source before agreeing to hand over personal details. If someone has defamed anyone on a Wikipedia page by making stuff up, then they don't deserve protection, but if they just did what we all do, then we cannot not protest to the WMF that handing over their details is wrong. SilkTork (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (blackout)

Oppose this is a poorly thought out expression of rage. ~~What geographies is this in? What namespaces?~~ (resolved. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)) Will the Indian court view this as aggressive contempt? Will an office action veto this? There are no answers to these questions. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answers to those questions are either baked into the proposal or the consensus making process that will unfold here, or have somewhat concrete answers. The localities to be covered are anywhere that receives en.wikipedia. The namespaces to be covered will probably end up being all forward facing content (article and article talk space), but not project space.
The Indian court may very well consider this a contempt-worthy action, given their apparently deep confusion about the manner in which this project operates and the distinction between and relative roles of the WMF and the community. We must acknowledge going in that this course of action may have substantial impacts upon the classification of Wikipedia as an entity in India and maybe even the availability of the site in India in general (and that may be short-term or decidedly not: much of that may hinge on the Indian publics response to these events).
Regardless, the support for this course of action is not ignorance or denial of those possible outcomes, but from the belief that they are, sadly, much the lesser of two evils. This is not an expression of rage, but of concern. And if the community authorizes this action and the WMF blocks it with an office action, the crisis of trust between us will intensify, but that to is a situation where a lot of us feel there is no way past but through. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be the community's concern if a country blocks it. Why should we sacrifice the integrity of the project to appeal to a government that doesn't even understand it? Nswix (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we at least have a timeframe for this, else we'll need another RfC. For the record, I absolutely oppose disclosing personal information in any way that would make an editor publicly identifiable. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does 2-3 days mean, @Chaotic Enby? I don't mean to nitpick, but we really do need a definite timeframe. Valereee (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be some question on what namespaces, too. Valereee (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming oppose based on Wales' statement that WMF are pursuing what all of us want, even if they can't tell us the details now. Valereee (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have the time frame [2] , 4 days only. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 5) Far too little information What exactly is being protested here? The court order? The WMF considering complying with the court order? The WMF working with a court to try and get it to rescind the order rather than response given in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram? The WMF not giving editors all the information they want, despite the matter being sub judice? What exactly is being proposed? What is it hoped will be achieved? For example, has a lawyer determined this wont be contempt of court? What would be the implications if it is contempt of court? What have layers stated will be the impact on the case even if it isn't contempt of court (e.g. will it hinder the WMF's position)? What will be the impact on any future legal actions in India - e.g. will it impact the WMF's ability to take action against people paid to spread disinformation on Wikipedia? I'm not seeing any evidence that most of these questions have been asked, let alone answered. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These questions and issues actually have been largely discussed at some length in the previous threads, which we should maybe link above. I will give you my best impressions of some of the core questions: the issue the blackout is meant to expressly protest is the WMF's decision to disclose PII, not the ancillary issues. The refusal of the WMF to discuss the matter while claiming it is entirely or primarily due to sub judice principles is not the issue being expressly targeted, but a number of editors have opined in related discussions that if a part of the price tag of staying in the court's good graces throghout litigation is to effectively implement a gag order preventing the WMF from communicating with the community on this matter, that alone is cause for serious complaint and maybe reason enough to refuse to elect to engage with the court in a country where the WMF is not domiciled and does not have offices.
What is hoped to be achieved is to get the WMF to refuse to disclose the PII of editors who have done nothing but comport with this project's rules and do the business of encyclopedia building, reporting on the views of reliable sources. To answer your questions about consequences, yes it is very possible, even likely, that the WMF will not only face a contempt ruling if it refuses to the disclose the information, it may even have to default this case. The consequences of that default may be monetary damages against the WMF (which will very likely not be enforceable in the US due to principles of US jurisprudence on international comity which are too lengthy to get into here, but which I am happy to give a basic breakdown on, on your talk page, if you like). It is also possible-to-probable that the court may order a domain block of Wikipedia in part or all of India, or that Wikipedia may lose it "intermediary" media organization status in India, making it more liable to future suits (though, these too will probably be unenforceable if the WMF does not stipulate to the judgments. We should have no illusions about any of these consequences, and every editor should !vote according to what they think the lesser of the evils are. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if bad actors are trying to stop the free flow of information, blacking the website out is doing the job for them. Llammakey (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - looks a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your Jimbo. ANI lawyers must be rubbing their hands with glee at this stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My understanding is that WMF is doing two things: (1) providing the email/IP addresses under covered seal to the court and (2) serving the summons on the editors. I also remember seeing that WMF has said that they will pay for counsel for the editors using their legal assistance fund. WMF has already explained that they are doing #1 to preserve their right to appeal and to prevent the court from ordering Wikipedia taken down in India. #2 is not consequential in my view: the plaintiff (ANI) could easily have asked the court to serve the editors via their talk page since they don't have contact information. I'm also opposed to framing this as a protest action against WMF. They're doing everything they can do within the bounds of the law to ensure that Wikipedia is not taken down in India. If we want to protest anyone, it should litigants bringing cases against Wikipedia editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with @Thryduulf. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I also agree with @Levivich, @Polygnotus, and @Rhododendrites. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything here except the sentiment behind They're doing everything they can do within the bounds of the law to ensure that Wikipedia is not taken down in India. If that "everything" includes letting a corporation use the legal system to threaten editors and invite further lawsuits, then the WMF is just as culpable. Being taken down in India is preferable to creating an existential threat to Wikipedia's editing model and a danger to its contributors. It remains to be seen where they'll land on that, which is why this is so chaotic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the WMF lawyers are thinking, but there's a possibility they've concluded that they can win this in India's Supreme Court. If I were the WMF's lawyer and had reached a similar conclusion, I'd likely advise WMF to do what they're doing here: share with the court with the assurance that the information remains sealed and pursue an appeal. They're also not letting a corporation do anything. The corporation has already sued the editors and will continue to do so notwithstanding what WMF does. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That win, which I can tell you certainly cannot be counted on, will at a minimum require that we sacrifice the interests, well-being, and possibly even the safety of volunteers, just to test such a legal theory. At the same time, there will be substantial risk of all India-related articles will devolve into unmanageable time sinks and legal threats. That is bad cost-benefit exchange imo, and an amoral choice to put our volunteers at risk to preserve the WMF's legal options. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is at risk? Their IPs and emails are going to the court under sealed cover, not to the plaintiffs. And of course nothing is certain; lawyers advise their clients based on their knowledge of the law and analysis of the likelihood of success. It appears to me that the WMF and its lawyers are acting deliberately and cautiously in this case (which is evidenced by the fact that they reached a stipulation to prvoide the info under covered seal, rather than letting the court issue a potentially worse order). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[3] - Plaintiff can request disclosure of necessary, so yes ANI can get their hands on the subscriber details. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That document, in its entirety, says: "In view of the Vigilance Committee meeting, this matter cannot be taken up today." voorts (talk/contributions) 02:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently posted the wrong link, here's the correct one.- Ratnahastin (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I just read the stipulation. They can make a motion, WMF can oppose that motion, and then appeal any adverse ruling. Since ANI was asking for data solely so that they could serve papers, they really have no grounds to ask for the subscriber data, as IP noted below in oppose #38. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF's legal options are our legal options. We as a community can disagree with their moral math. But part of why they exist in the first place is precisely because we have a need for a legal entity to represent us. -- asilvering (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blackouts never solve anything. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:6474:93BD:459C:29E7 (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC) — 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:6474:93BD:459C:29E7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It is clear that supporters do not understand the potential consequences of this particular action, just as I don't. As such, I oppose. Izno (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; "'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party". It is literally said one of the first privacy policy sentences that "We are committed to only sharing your information in limited circumstances, such as to improve the Wikimedia Sites, to comply with the law, or to protect you and others." I am not willing to blackout Wikipedia because of Leopards Eating My Face syndrome. Kline • talk • contribs 18:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That argument ignores key legal realities and the extended history of the project: Wikipedia has refused (and currently does refuse). The legal rulings of a number of countries when comporting with those rulings would irretrievably undermine the work of project and our movement's values. China, Turkey, and Russia, to name the other major global population centers whose domestic laws, regulations, policies, and court or tribunal rulings have been ignored, with blocks of the site in those countries always resulting. This is in principle no different. The WMF is not located in and does not maintain offices in India. The only question is, are the issues and actions arising out of India severe enough for us--and more importantly, the WMF--to opt instead for non-compliance there as well.The majority of the community seems to feel so. The WMF's precise position is uncertain at this juncture, but that are agreeing to at least disclose information in this instance, and the community largely objects to that. If you have a more particularized argument for why we should adopt a separate tact for India, that is one thing. But the "law is the law, period" argument clearly is not consistent with the legal reality or movement precedent. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise, please stop badgering opposes. You can take these comments to the discussion section. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say most of my responses here have been to answer inquiries, not reject positions, but I'll abide by your recommendation all the same. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can answer inquiries in the discussion section, too. Please, @Snow Rise, you're badgering. Seriously. I know you really feel strongly about this, but this is badgering. Valereee (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Val, I disagree with the characterization, but I've already said I will follow the recommendation. If for no other reason than to avoid further bloat in the survey section. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to say that the blackout wouldn't also harm the project's work because we have decided to clamour like monkeys over an issue that would easily be resolved by looking at the privacy policy? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Kline • talk • contribs 18:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, it is clear you don't agree with this proposal, but it might be helpful to reflect on Barack Obama's words when he was elected president: "I will listen to you. Especially when we disagree." I am here listening to the opposes, and also listening in context to Snow Rise's informed and particular responses to those opposes. It is by taking all these views together that we are all able to make a more informed judgement. SilkTork (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork, I'm listening to supporters and opposers. Did you think I wasn't simply because I asked SR to stop posting lengthy responses to opposes? I just want them to take these to the discussion section instead of looking like they're badgering the oppose section. Valereee (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wikipedia is too valuable a resource and blackouts are too useless a protest.~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the main reason SOPA fell on it's face was that a large scale blackout occured? Reddit doesn't count, it was just badly managed. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the actual originators of the use of Web blackouts as an e-activism technique, I have to say that the real effect of them is not really measurable, and is thus dubious. The primarily work as an awareness-raising device for people not yet clued into what is going on. But what purpose could that serve here? The impetus of a blackout is to create binary opposition to something in a wave, and this is an extremely blunt instrument with a single and non-nuanced target: "oppose this legislation", "boycott this company", etc. The target here would be WMF (being targeted by members of the general public with zero background in the case, in WMF and WP policy, etc.). That cannot have good results. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Candy: it seems to me that if the only outcome here is that more people become aware that Wikipedia's articles are being curated and censored by SLAPP suits in a foreign (or for Indians, there own domestic) court, that alone is a desirable end. Our content belongs to everyone, and we are now crossing into territory where the insight it gives into the world can be shaped by media entities with political axes to grind, abeded by friendly courts in just one country leveraging their money and connections. You don't think that the general public might have some innate interest (and arguably entitlement) to knowing a little more about that, and that at least some of them can't be trusted to accurately parse and follow up on the situation? And that public perception of the WMF won't ultimately be a powerful motivator for its leadership to think twice about pursuing their apparent chosen course of action in contradiction of community will and good sense? I don't relish giving the WMF a black eye over this, but there are other outcomes here I fear much, much more. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My kneejerk response is, of course, "yes, support anything that might help". But my more reasoned response is: in order to support this, I would need to be convinced that taking this action would not cause harm to the editors in question and to the ultimate success of the case. There is nothing here that convinces me of that. -- asilvering (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Voorts and Kline. Throttle the free flow of information to "punish" the WF for doing something it has told all editors it may? D'oh! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my and others' comments at the IANB thread. This RfC is wildly premature without an actual technical implementation plan, and furthermore, I don't believe there is any technical implementation would be feasible without WMF developer support. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andre🚐 19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I weakly oppose this because we don't know how it might impact WMF's efforts, which while we may be critical of them, are likely still directed towards the protection of the community writ large; we are largely not experts in Indian law and don't know how this may be perceived in the Indian legal system; and we don't know how this might impact the legal cause of the editors in question should they be further enmeshed in the legal proceedings. I very much agree with User:Asilvering's point above that we need to be sure it may not ultimately harm the editors or the potential success of the case. I understand, but do not agree with arguments that a blackout should be avoided due to the harm that it may cause to readers. That is the nature of collective action. Nurses do not harm patients by striking for more sustainable and just working conditions, rather they protect them in the long run. Editors "striking" protect readers by refusing to participate silently in the creation of a world where information and information users are less free. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strikes me as premature. This might be justified in a few days, but for now, I'd like to hear again from the WMF and see greater consideration from the community of exactly what a blackout would consist of. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blackingout the English Wikipedia is a bad idea. Instead blackout only Wikipedia in India. Catfurball (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's probably what they want. Instead, one might publish detailed information in some huge pop-up for all Indian Wikipedia users to raise awareness to the case. Nakonana (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think not publishing information is a good response to the original issue: a government doesn't want us publishing certain information. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposse An overly dramatic response to the situation. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this is the right solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Like many others, I share the concern about disclosing personal information. However, making a decision in 24 hours is too rushed for almost any decision of this type. Add to this that the decision involves an extreme measure: a worldwide blackout for 2-3 days. This type of decision should not be taken lightly without proper consideration of its possible consequences. I would be more favorable if there was more time to decide and if the blackout was limited to Wikipedia in India. Additionally, there are concerns about the target of the protest. Should we protest against WMF, against the Delhi High Court, or against people who use legal actions to threaten free speech?
As a side note: Given the very limited time available, it's unlikely that enough editors will respond to this RFC to be anywhere close to being representative of the editors of English Wikipedia, all of whom would be affected. So even if the supports win by numbers in this limited timeframe, I don't think this RFC is enforceable. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think any of the edits to that ANI article were defamatory, but that's not really the point. This may not be a popular opinion on Wikipedia, but I think the notion that the WMF should not comply with court orders is ridiculous. Sorry, I believe in the rule of law, I believe in courts, I believe nobody should be above or outside the reach of the law, including myself and other editors. If a court orders a company that runs a website to turn over its IP logs, the company is going to comply, as it should. There is no reason the WMF should be an exception. I think the WMF negotiating a disclosure under seal, to the court and not to the plaintiff, was a reasonable step that the WMF took to protect its users' privacy. I can find no fault with the WMF's actions in this case.
Some editors say: but it's India, it has repressive or undemocratic courts or government, and that's why the WMF shouldn't comply with its court orders. I agree with what the judges said about this: "If you don't like India, don't do business in India." The WMF does business in India: see Wikipedia in India. It fundraises in India [4], it gets money from India [5], it has an affiliate in India [6]... it's going to have to follow the orders of Indian courts. Can't have it both ways.
So if the community wants to have the WMF not comply with Indian court orders, it needs to have the WMF pull out of India and cease operations there. But even if that happened, editors should realize that their IP addresses, registered email addresses, etc., are still likely going to be within the reach of Indian courts, because India is a signatory to the Hague Service Convention (and even if your country isn't, there is the letters rogatory process). The bottom line is: the websites we post stuff on are going to turn over our IP addresses etc. in response to court orders, and there is nothing we can really do about that, nor should we try to evade it, because we should be responsible for what we publish online, even if it's on Wikipedia. It's not just the WMF: your email provider, your ISP, they will comply with court orders, too.
If we don't want the WMF to submit itself to the jurisdiction of certain countries, then we need to tell the WMF to cease operations (especially fundraising!) in those countries, and we need to accept that Wikipedia may be blocked in those countries. But if we want to be a global encyclopedia, then we have to be global citizens, and that means submitting ourselves to global jurisdictions. But let's not be unreasonable by demanding that the WMF refuse to comply with court orders in countries where it does business. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The argument that "WMF doesn't have offices in India so it's not under India's jurisdiction" shows that editors here really don't understand how personal jurisdiction works. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I am sorry, but you are massively and fundamentally confused about the principles of law you are referencing. The Hague Services Convention merely provides a route for service of documentation and requests (summons, interrogatories and such)--it's in the name; it does not in any way put evidence anymore "within the reach" of the courts of a signatory nation than they would otherwise be under the normal rules of comity of the court from which aid in collecting the evidence is being sought. In short, if you want to send a request, the Hague Services Convention will compel a court to assist you in delivering that request with proper service, but it will not compel that court to render aid in collecting that evidence.
And US courts will only entertain letters rogatory from courts in other nations under extremely demanding and complicated comity analysis. For example, there is a vast array of reasons why an ANI interrogatory or order from an Indian court seeking to compel the turn-over of evidence in the present situation would be almost certain to be denied by the US court asked to compel delivery of that information. Subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and incompatibility with first and fourth amendment protections, primarily, but plenty of other hurdles.
US courts are not in the habit of giving lower levels of protection to the personal privacy rights of US citizens with respect to foreign parties and courts than they would receive with regard to domestic parties and courts demanding that same information. Quite the very opposite: the US is not a signatory to many of the broad conventions on comity in this areas precisely because its protections are so robust, and also because many other countries are loath to enter into such compacts with the US because of certain idiosyncrasies of the US court system, such as its unusually high judgment amounts and large array of causes of action. Not only are the chances of an Indian party just being able to demand your information through a letter rogatory or an Indian court order unlikely to be successful, but in the extremely rare case that they might have a chance, even trying would typically involve immense litigation cost and protracted court battles. It would be a much more onerous affair than suing for libel under relatively friendly domestic courts in India, changing the SLAPP calculus immensely. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, while it's true that the Hague Services Convention is about service of process and not about obtaining evidence, India and the US are also signatories to the Hague Evidence Convention, which is about obtaining evidence. It is not unusual for US companies to honor requests for customer data from India. As examples, here is Verizon's 2023 transparency report, and here is Google's 2023 transparency report. Note that Google reports it disclosed data in response to >70% of requests (Verizon doesn't report this statistic). This is why I think it's ridiculous to expect the WMF to do anything differently than what other companies like Google and Verizon do (which is, to be specific: comply with the law). Levivich (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those companies comply with those requests because they are domiciled or otherwise have major business presences in those countries, and those requests typically involve domestic contacts: they don't just hand over information for customers in other nations on demand, and would in most scenarios be prevented by the law of those other nations from doing so. You're entire original (thoroughly inaccurate) point was that we should not be concerned about the WMF vitiating user privacy in situations like the present one, because the parties who want that information could simply demand it of Wikipedia/the WMF and U.S. courts would be forced to facilitate those requests. And I'm sorry, bu that is simply not true in any way, fashion, or form. If that were the case, this situation wouldn't be nearly so novel and the foundation wouldn't be able to boast (as it often has done and has the right to do) that the number of times it has turned over PII to parties or courts can be counted on the fingers of two hands. This situation is novel, and it does set a dangerous new precedent. Your argument for why that is not so is not based in real facts or an accurate representation of the law. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF also does business in India. And you have completely missed my point, which is that if the WMF does business in a country, it should comply with the laws of that country. You're welcome to disagree. This situation is not in any way novel: carriers like Verizon and Google reply to tens of thousands of requests every year. It's not even novel for the WMF, who have faced these issues before in multiple countries (albeit not as often as the major carriers). Levivich (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And have almost universally refused to disclose PII, because it is a completely different type of organization, with completely different needs and priorities. Disclosure in this instance would be deviation from the (almost never abandoned) norm, and should not happen for a bevy of reasons. Of course those companies are more lax with your personal information. They are for-profit corporations. They not only disclose information more regularly as a cost of doing business, they actively sell your information as part of the personal data industry. Those activities are not qualities to be celebrated and emulated, least of all by the WMF, of all organizations in the world. What you are suggesting runs counter to all basic sense and traditional approach of this project and the WMF with regard to how liberally it should part with PII. The very fundamentals of this operation hinge on a radically different approach to protection of volunteers, by a very different type of org, in a very different context from these for profit entities you keep making comparisons to. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if the community wants to have the WMF not comply with Indian court orders, it needs to have the WMF pull out of India and cease operations there. – Yes, that's the whole point. This option is preferable to letting corporations control coverage of themselves by threatening editors. There's an ethical obligation to stand against SLAPP suits targeted at people who are only guilty of reverting the unexplained removal of cited content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice an open letter to the WMF demanding that they stop doing business in India. If we had one, maybe I'd sign it. What we have so far is an open letter demanding the WMF not comply with this court order, and this proposal for a blackout in response to the WMF complying with this court order. Levivich (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's putting the cart before the horse. We don't actually want the foundation to be forced into not providing the encyclopedia in India. Realistically, that might be an unavoidable consequence of what we do want: the encyclopedia being blocked is one of a number of possible consequences of the WMF not providing the PII--if we somehow convince them that refusal of the order to disclose the PII is the only viable path forward here. But we don't in principal want them to 'stop doing business in India' unless that is strictly necessary to the goal of not handing over the user info. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's strictly necessary, if you believe the WMF should follow the laws of the countries it does business in. Levivich (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue there is that "follow the law" is an idiomatic expression, not a legal term of art, and can mean many things. It is impossible for the WMF to follow every ruling of every state entity in the world and still achieve it's mission, because many of those states operate on repressive principles irreconcilable with the basic operational necessities of this project. That is why the community and the WMF have accepted being banned in numerous countries, including some of the most populous in the world, rather than comply with onerous, dangerous, and chilling requests. India is increasingly becoming a country that presents situations that fit cleanly into that category. The present threshold implicit in this situation should not be crossed for similar reasons to why the WMF decided not to cross it with regard to China, Russia, Turkey, and other nations in the past. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Follow the law" is not just an idiomatic expression, it's also a requirement of the law; it's requirement of every legal system in every country that people and organizations in that country follow the law. You're really spamming the shit out of this discussion. My point is simple, and you understand it: either comply with Indian laws or stop doing business there. You don't have to agree, but I don't know why you're arguing so much. It's not like you can prove me wrong on a matter of opinion. Levivich (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to agree with you insofar as there is no further point to engagement with you on these differences of opinion. Most of your arguments have no fundamentally sound reasoning that I can deduce, and many of them are based in "facts" that are demonstrably false or inaccurately framed. No personal offense is intended by that analysis--I just see a fair bit of confusion in your perception of how law operates in these contexts and how the WMF and the movement have traditionally navigated those principles. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Llammakey. Protesting a court case that threatens the freedom of information by shutting down the largest free information repository in the world seems counter-intuitive, and if anything, something ANI's lawyers would love. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a blackout. We have already made our position emphatically clear with the now-800-something-signature petition. This isn't going to do much to strengthen that, and regardless of whether it does or not I don't think anyone at the WMF is in doubt that we care, and intensely so. Blackouts make sense (to the extent that they ever do) when they're used to exert pressure on something where pressure might be able to change course, e.g. political things, like SOPA. We are not going to strong-arm the justice system of the most populous country in the world into doing what we want by blacking out a website they seem to be willing to ban anyway. Are we trying to get the WMF to do something? Because as much as people talk about the WMF giving over editor data doing damage to the entire editing community, the defence the WMF puts up against that is also defending the entire editing community—defending us—and publicly taking a stand against them just sows chaos and is completely counterproductive to achieving what we all want. We should not jump to treat the WMF as an opponent just because they haven't done exactly what we want. The rationale behind blacking out the site is principled, but it not going to help us, the WMF, or the court case, not to mention the irony of taking down all of our content in response to a lawsuit about a tiny piece of it. Giraffer (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I just don't think this is practical. We're almost certainly going to need WMF to cooperate with any attempts to blackout the site, and whether the WMF is passively or actively involved in such a blackout, it would likely negatively affect the WMF's ability to handle the legal case regardless of what it decides. This isn't practical and is likely to cause more harm than it does good. Hog Farm _Talk 20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The WMF has a lot of money. People with a lot of money have good lawyers. The WMF is doing what their lawyers want them to do, which is exactly what they should be doing. I understand that people want to do something, but an open letter to tell someone something they already know, and are actively working on, doesn't make much sense to me. And why black out Wikipedia? There are far far more effective strategies to ensure this backfires on ANI. Polygnotus (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the concerns about the ANI case articulated among the supporters, and would support this if I felt confident it would be constructive.
We're operating on the basis of woefully incomplete information, with no relevant legal expertise, interfering with an active case where we don't know what legal strategies are in play or how our actions might affect them. I see an attempt to force the Wikimedia Foundation's hand, but no demonstrated understanding of how this will be perceived by anyone other than the Foundation. We know well that the world does not understand the difference between the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, and volunteers, so how will this act be different? In the SOPA/PIPA blackout, it didn't really matter if the line between the foundation and editors was blurry; here it does. What reason is there to believe this won't be seen as an act of judicial interference? Even if not interference, why are we so confident this won't influence judicial attitudes in counterproductive ways? One judge expressed a "meh" attitude at our open letter, but a blackout could well be a different animal. What advice do we have for the Foundation's lawyers when they have to answer for it in court? In what way does it derail their plans? What advice do we have in future cases, anywhere in the world, when lawyers are asked to account for interference by the anonymous editors the foundation is tasked with defending?
At the end of the day, I hope the WMF understands the existential threat posed by politically motivated litigation (SLAPPs, unmasking suits, judicial harassment, etc.), and understands the degree of harm cowing to strategic litigation would have on our ability to pursue our mission. These are threats that need significant investment -- not just shoring up legal strategies for cases abroad, but devoting some real brain power to contingency planning should the legal reality on the ground change in the US.
I'm just not convinced that our interests or the interests of the defendants are served by trying to force the WMF's hand and undercutting the judgment of their lawyers. Over the years, amid all the things the WMF has done to get pushback from the community, I don't think selling out our editors in court is among them. If that faith turns out to be misplaced, count me in for a protest action. Until then, I want to let the people who have all the information, experience, and expertise do their job rather than make it harder. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose protesting the Wikimedia Foundation. I think it's absolutely ludicrous to compare SOPA/PIPA to the actions of a single trial court judge, not to mention a blackout twice as long as the SOPA/PIPA one. The SOPA/PIPA blackout was a call to action to every American reader to write to Congress to oppose these laws. What's the call to action here? An insular complaint with a foundation 99% of readers have never heard of? Maybe if coming after editors became the official policy of a government we could consider a blackout, but this is simply a misguided lower court judge issuing an order that the Foundation's lawyers have been able to negotiate to a fairly limited harm, and which they intend to appeal. At the prior centralized discussion, I was most convinced by Valereee's opinion that like in Turkey, if they appeal it high enough, WMF will win, and that will be not only a win for Wikipedia but for free speech in India in general. I trust that the Foundation's goals are to protect free speech and that the attorneys familiar with the Indian court system have found a strategy optimal to protect the community and Wikipedia. If this strategy fails and brings these editors to harm with no benefit to free speech then we should discuss opposing the Foundation, but right now we have far too limited information. Even still, I agree with Levivich above who makes the point that opposing court orders is frankly silly: editors and the Foundation are people who still exist in their societies and are bound by the rule of law. Establishing the Wikimedia Foundation as a group that doesn't play ball with court systems is shooting ourselves in the foot. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Makes no sense. Make Wikipeda and the whole world suffer to try to pressure one judge who doesn't care about that? North8000 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overall blackout of entire website. Maybe splash page only. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: Seems a bit premature. Maybe a banner instead? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see how this will actually achieve anything. If it did happen, the people hurt by this would be the regular user, not the Delhi high court, or those in the position to offer the personal information to them. I think it would likely do something catastrophic to the reputation of the site. There has to be a better way to explain our displeasure of this situation. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per several above, particularly Hog Farm, Asilvering, and Voorts. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per most above Smarkflea (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The case is on hold until December 16 anyway , and despite what other editors have told you, there's at least several days until the data has to be submitted to the court (7 days after the summons are successfully emailed to the Wikipedians - and we're assuming that those emails won't "bounce"...). But frankly: I’m feeling really icky about the community’s approach to this entire thing - I think we should take a step back with fresh eyes. Toxicity, casting aspersions (I've seen suggestions that WMF is throwing Wikipedians under the bus, for financial motives; I've even seen insults thrown around, e.g. "craven"). Is that all OK now? And in this oxygen-free, high-toxicity environment, we've relentlessly wound ourselves up, over the course of a month, reaching this point even after we learned that (1) ANI is cherrypicking our own discussions to try and win the case, (2) sometimes, WMF has to disclose editor data, but it’s thankfully rare, and we know they’re prepared to fully play the legal system if they can, to avoid exposing editors to risk; (3) WMF has successfully appealed the order they were facing (the one saying they had to hand over all data to ANI directly with no restrictions), (4) what’s happening instead, to protect the Wikipedians’ privacy, is something that was publicly known to be on the cards for more than a month now. And I accept that as a result, ANI can submit a petition to the court, to ask for some data. But (i) it's just "basic subscriber data", not IP addresses - probably just an email address? And (ii) WMF’s strategy here has pulled the rug from under ANI’s feet – right now, what would ANI's reason be, to ask for the data? ANI said it needed data to serve legal papers on users, and WMF found a pretty creative way to avoid that (by WMF handling the postman job itself). (5) the Wikipedians in question have known about this case for months (or would have done if they'd paid attention their emails); (6) WMF has reportedly offered to foot their legal bills and find lawyers for them, (7) WMF hasn’t come up with its legal strategy in a vacuum - it’s been consulting local human rights and free speech organizations and the Board of Trustees, (8) WMF has been told that under current Indian legal doctrine, it can’t itself defend the defamation claim (i.e. argue the Wikipedia content is true and the editors haven’t done anything bad), because doing so would deprive it of intermediary liability protection in India. What this potentially means is that either at least one Wikipedian has their day in court to defend their editing, or it's game over, ANI wins by default (without being challenged!). Loss of intermediary status, btw, could be NUCLEAR – that’s not just game over in this pissy little libel suit, it’s potentially game over for the community-autonomy-protecting Wikimedia model (for all the Wikimedia projects, in any language), in the world's most populous country, and in any other country that follows suit. Why? Because if WMF is easily made liable for things we do, then WMF has to vet and veto what we do - i.e. govern the projects - just like a newpaper publisher or TV network. Which it obviously can't do, and we don't want, either. End result - it decides India is too risky, and geoblocks India. Indian Powers That Be get to say WMF deserted 1.4 billion Indians of its own accord, rather than a judge having to explcitly order a website ban. Catastrophe, right? So, take a breath: What do people really think a blackout, this week, over this particular thing, would really achieve? It distracts WMF even more than we already have (and how convenient: even though the case is on hold until December 16th, the RfC backers are pushing for the RfC to close this weekend, outside of - I assume - WMF work hours. Have we somehow forgotten that these are human beings whose day job – paid less than their peers at other Internet sites, I don’t doubt - is to do the best they can for a legally-enshrined mission, “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally”? Let’s be honest: with both WMF and individual Wikipedians being co-defendants against ANI here, who among us has spent more than 30 seconds thinking/discussing the obviously more constructive question: “is there a way we can help win the case”? Has anyone even coherently explained to you what the threat model is here, for the three Wikipedians whose exceptionally limited nonpublic "basic subscriber information (probably just an email address) will be held by a court? I mean, come ON – Google got asked for data 45000 times in India in just 6 months in 2023, and released data 70% of the time - and imagine just how much data that actually would be)? Who among us has wondered whether we can de-risk things for the Wikipedians and maybe help achieve WMF’s preferred outcome here (beating ANI!), by having an “I am Spartacus” moment? Couldn't a willing Wikipedian just say they’re one of the named accounts, then appoint a lawyer to represent them in Delhi, and then go on to fight this case from the comfort of their own kitchen table? Who could say they're not that editor (and why would that matter)? And then this case could be fought the way it damn well should (since editors, unlike WMF, won't have their hands tied behind their back - they can mount a direct defence). The world should hear it: ANI has reportedly engaged in highly unethical media practices, now wants to use the legal system to hide that. I would damn well hope someone among us is brave enough to have their day in court so that the rest of the world can hear that. And if – if – the Delhi Court itself does something bad here – e.g. needlessly releases the confidential email addresses, or reaches a ridiculous ruling on the merits, then at that point the whole world will be there to witness its misconduct. Whereas if we blackout now, what happens? The public story is then either “WMF released data to a judge that the judge will hold confidentially; Wikipedians raged (so what?)”, or “WMF caves to Wikipedians’ pressure, stupidly letting ANI win its defamation claim by default - and naturally WMF also gets punished for contempt of court, for – and here’s the really ridiculous part - going back on something it had been suggesting for a month (Oh and by the way, if you’re thinking “no big deal”, maybe get some legal advice, or realise your own ignorance; the consequences of contempt can be so much worse (including for individuals) than just Wikipedia being blocked in India for a while, and WMF would probably in effect lose its other cases too, just for being tarred as a bad faith actors in the system). I’m a 15 year Wikipedian, but I’m posting from an IP, because I said something unflattering about ANI above, and I honestly don’t care if they want to sue me about it. At least posting as an IP, there’s no need for ANI to ask the Delhi High Court to order WMF to disclose my data. You want to intimidate and punish me for speaking about you, ANI? Come get me. I don’t even need WMF to spend money and time making your life difficult, like they've done for the last month. And I certainly don't think we, the community, ought to be making WMF's position even harder. How's about we stop screaming and trying to grab the helicopter controls, when we don't know how to fly, and can only (barely) see out the side windows. 81.143.194.59 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC) — 81.143.194.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oppose. This would be a combination of cutting off our nose to spite our face, and biting the hand that feeds. If you feel you have to act on this, then black out your own page, announce an editorial strike/walkoff, write an article about it for Signpost, write letters to the WMF executive director and board, or whatever. A major WMF project's userbase collectively deciding to attack WMF in a high-profile manner will have two pretty obvious effects: 1) The public press and most especially that of the neo-fascist far-right and of countries with low press freedom – i.e. the propaganda engines of forces that are inimical to WMF's goals and WP's purpose – would jump all over this as a salacious story of WP running off the rails and WMF heading for demise. 2) WMF itself would be strongly incentivized to reduce the autonomy of projects' editorial communities and impose a more top-down control structure to prevent this kind of "autoimmune attack" or "internal insurrection" from being possible again. It's one thing to raise criticisms but quite another to disrupt the entire project in a glaring public manner just to make a point. That this proposal has as much support as it does already sends a clear enough message. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise against writing letters to WMF. There won't be anything in those letters that hasn't been said before and that WMF isn't aware of yet. The letters will only waste the WMF's time and resources. The same resources they currently need to properly deal with the lawsuit. It would be an "autoimmune attack" as you said. The community would turn into a second party that the WMF would need to try to keep in check (or just "keep updated" or "keep from distracting from the main issue"). Nakonana (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not have the highest opinion of the foundation and how it supports editors in many ways but on this particular issue I cannot fault their actions and the information and plans they have shared with us. And I'm not at all sure what this proposed blackout is supposed to accomplish as editors who are alarmed and unhappy have already very clearly communicated that to the foundation. I don't know what editors are expected readers to do that editors have not already done. ElKevbo (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot support such a drastic action with such little discussion time. Many have explained the reasons not to do this far better than I can, but I'll just say that we are not lawyers and this is more likely to make things worse as far as the legal case is concerned than to make a positive difference. The petition with over 800 signatures has clearly expressed the community's opinion on the matter. Shutting down all of Wikipedia because of the actions of one court in one country is simply not justifiable in my opinion. I particularly agree with the opposes of Thryduulf and Giraffer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not help WMF win the court case nor prevent the disclosure of PI. ::Moved to neutral. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I can more than get behind the open letter – it absolutely makes sense to state clearly as a community that disclosure isn't an acceptable outcome – it seems we have no idea who or what this blackout would even be targeting. As multiple people have mentioned above and below and everywhere else, we haven't a clue what the WMF's plan is, which makes sense because they can't talk about the case, and even if they could that would almost certainly be unhelpful to the actual goals, those being keeping editors safe, and winning, in that order. I imagine that there are more than a couple people at the WMF who understand the gravity of the situation, so let's all take a breath and AGF for the time being. If that good faith turns out to be unwarranted down the road, that is the time to have this kind of discussion, not now when nobody even has a clue what's going on. As an aside, I imagine that the WMF would be perfectly able to say to all of us "yep, we are going to disclose their identities" if that was actually their plan, given that that's what the court wants them to do. The fact that they have not done so suggests to me that it isn't their plan at all. Tollens (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia has remarkably high availability and this makes it a system that you can rely on and trust to be there when you need it. This is a significant asset which should not be sacrificed over a single local dispute. If you force people to find alternatives then they will do just that. And if there is demand for alternatives then others will consider supplying them. In an increasingly volatile world in which misinformation and uncertainty is multiplying, we should maintain our reputation as a rock of stability. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Some want to punish the Wikimedia Foundation, some want to punish the judge and others Asian News International. How does a blackout punish any of them? It will draw a lot of attention, but what will that attention accomplish? Who will we ask people to contact? I'm not sure, nor do I think that will accomplish anything. I signed the letter and I don't want the Foundation to turn over the user information under any conditions. If the judge has the power to turn off Wikipedia for India, let them and that will send a clear message. What other power do they really have? Also, we have very limited information about strategy and tactics of this case and I generally trust that those who do (the Foundation) will do the right thing. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jimbo's comments today, the fact that the information hasn't been released yet (consequences should not come before actions), the lack of a technical plan (common.js? edit filters? other?), lack of a clear scope for this blackout (viewing? editing? logged out users only? certain namespaces? special pages?), the damage that a blackout targeting the WMF could do to Wikipedia's reputation with the public (people who find Wikipedia trustworthy might be convinced to think that it is now corrupt or ridden with problems), the massive damage this nuclear option would do to enwiki/WMF community relations, and the fact that even if WMF releases the information I'm not sure a blackout is the right tool here. I think Jimbo has finally said "please trust us" enough times and in enough ways and on enough pages that I am convinced. I urge restraint for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, considering Jimbo's statements, but I still think this should be covered in some way on the Main Page. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In other words, muffle Wikipedia to oppose those who want to muffle Wikipedia. That'll show 'em! Ravenswing 23:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this would only serve to antagonise people, and would seriously hamper the progress of editors during these days. I agree that we must do something, but this is not the way. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, without prejudice. While at this stage this is too soon, this is one of the appropriate responses if the editors who are part of this have their identities disclosed or other actions taken against them without the foundation working to fully protect them from harm and avoid the chilling effect on editors who work in areas of controversy. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are many points made above that I agree with (plus I appreciate Jimbo's comments on the matter). My main concerns would be: too soon, too little information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Targeting the wrong institution. Why are we targeting WMF if the problem is ANI (or the Indian Court's integrity)? WMF already knows that the community disagrees with sharing personal information of editors, so why do we keep bombarding WMF with the same information over and over again like a broken record? Do you think that they have already forgotten the community's stance on the issue? I doubt that. If you want to express your disapproval of the lawsuit then make that known to the one who started that lawsuit: ANI. There's no need to write emails to WMF or ask Jimbo for comments and clarifications. Instead, send those emails and requests for comments to ANI. Nobody will stop you from using throw-away-email-accounts and VPN while doing so. If you don't want to contact ANI, then send emails to your local newspaper and ask them to cover the topic in their report, or to send requests for comments to ANI. ANI wants the info to be deleted? Well, let them know how the Streisand effect works.Nakonana (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see this as a good idea at all. This is just going to turn people against Wikipedia. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ivan (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We need to see how the situation develops. Withdrawing from India completely would be a more justifiable position IMO, but to even consider that we would need to see what the court decides. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a bit late for me to coherently articulate my thoughts on the matter, but it should be stressed that blackouts seldom achieve anything beyond frustrating uninvolved parties (i.e. most of the reader and editor base in this instance). Borophagus (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Unproductive knee-jerk reaction. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No good comes from blackouts. Two or three days of protest accomplishes absolutely nothing while pissing off the silent majority the thousands of editors and million readers and risking long term consequences on activity and optics (this would certainly only raise tensions, and I promise would not convert anybody). This is one of the biggest sites in the world and frankly I do not think the enthusiasm of a few dozen people voting in favour of it should be of sufficient power to shut down the entire thing; it strikes me as incredibly unlikely there would be anything but extremely fringe support for this measure if you looked beyond the amount of attention you can attract to this discussion. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let it play out and see where it goes, to quote someone nobody will know. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see the situation resolving anything. The Indian court will just ignore what's happening on site anyways, and while I agree it would create a dangerous precedent, I think this situation is extremely rushed, that a 24 hours voting time is ludicrous, and that the failure to precise exactly the boundaries of this action before the opening of the votes creates a quite dangerous situation where only a relative handful of editors will be able to express their opinion. Blackouts never lead anywhere, speaking from experience.Larrayal (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blacking out Wikipedia (and other sites doing the same) is literally the reason why we defeated the SOPA/PIPA proposals in 2012, Larrayal, so I strongly disagree with your claim. It is certainly not the experience we here on Wikipedia have had in the past. Silver seren^C 00:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it worked a decade ago to gather popular support against a policy in the US does certainly not entail it will work against to gather nothing against a court that wants Wikipedia's head anyway and a decision the Wikimedia Foundation has probably already chosen. As others have already posited better than me, at this point in the trial, it could actually hinder Wikimedia's defence. Larrayal (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Jimbo's comments. I don't think this will achieve anything. If the WMF eventually releases information, I don't think a blackout will make them reconsider. I am optimistic though. win8x (talking | spying) 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this idea is an over-the-top response, and it needlessly would hinder progress editors make on pages plus many harmless readers who wish to view what the site has to say on topics wouldn't be able to access that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong oppose, this does not in any way accomplish the intended goal and only inconveniences the uninvolved editors trying to write for the Wiki. Shutting the site down over a legal fiasco almost nobody is invested in only raises distain for the site, this doesn't rally anyone towards your intended cause. Gasmasque (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There has been no disclosure yet, and a blackout will hurt readers but not make it more obvious to the WMF that we don't want there to be any disclosure. If there is disclosure, we should consider a blackout but also more serious and permanent measures like forking the project. Steven Walling • talk 00:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the WMF appears to be trying what it can do, short of contempt of court, to prevent the disclose of the editors. As others have mentioned, the WMF is trying to themselves from becoming a legal target and can only decline for so long. If it were more the case that WMF just said "sure, here's the names" without pause, that would be reason to take action. Masem (t) 00:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because this is far too hasty. I initially voted yes, but upon further consideration, I was also far too hasty. I urge fellow editors to vote yes or no and to fully read and comprehend the above arguments before voting. While it is important to show that we will not tolerate freedom of information being blatantly attacked, now is far too early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GracenC (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too hasty, merely considering an action is not worthy of protest. Should only protest after an action has been confirmed to happen. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 00:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This blackout will cause more bad than good in the long run. It will set a dangerous precedent for other bad actors that they could get away with other situations like this. It will also cause more damage to the user base (compared to Reddit's blackout for example), and that it will affect the silent majority of editors who couldn’t care less about the blackout, and the casual readers and users who may not be as well informed on the topic. Wikipedia as a whole would be more affected by a blackout due to the kind of website it is. It would hurt wikipedias image as a whole if the whole sites goes dark due something like this. Also giving such little time to vote is absurd, and would not allow for an accurate look at the general opinions on the site. Fossiladder13 (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several reasons laid out in more detail by others above. In short, it's too hasty of an action, it's impractical, it would only hurt regular users, and I think it would cause more harm than good to WP. And, per Llammakey and The Kip, why would we blackout a massive source of free information to protest a case that threatens the flow of said information? Sgubaldo (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A threat of a blackout if it actually happens, I could probably get behind. A blackout beforehand, as some kind of "see we're serious" signal, I cannot get behind. In this mad cacophonous rush, I'm concerned that if I support with "only if it actually happens," I'm just going to be considered support number 66. So I'm here. We should not do this beforehand. A 800 person petition looks like unity; a 50%/50% poorly thought out blackout proposal at the last minute looks like disunity. I wish this hadn't been proposed this way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I believe that WMF will not release any information they don't feel totally compelled to release. If their legal counsel tells them they have to release it, what impact on the legal equation can blacking out this site possibly have? --Iritscen (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Iritscen makes a good point, and overall these 'blackouts' smack of punishing ordinary, regular users and editors in favor of "making a point" that is something that, in the end, will have no effect on the outcome of the case one way or another. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jimbo, Dan Leonard, and SMcCandlish. RudolfRed (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As has been noted elsewhere, it's unclear whether this is intended to target ANI or WMF, but either option is bad. While the open letter was a good way to reiterate the community's stance, I believe WMF has had the same interests at heart, and I am assuming good faith on their approach to the case. A blackout against them only pushes the WMF and editors further apart. If the blackout is instead intended to target ANI (or the court), they will only see this as proof of Wikipedia's supposed "bias" and move further against the site. They didn't like it when a single article about the case was created; I don't imagine they'd respond well if we decided to mention the case on every article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The millions of readers and thousands of editors shouldn't be affected by a lawsuit. To quote our unofficial motto, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't believe it will help in convincing the judge to change their mind. They've already considered Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation as constituting interference, and they'll probably do the same for a protest blackout. The court will probably block Wikipedia anyways regardless of whether the blackout happens or not if WMF decides to withhold the information, which at that point the blackout will only hurt users who don't have a say in the court case. Macrophyseter | talk 01:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above comments. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't see how this would help anyone, not the targeted users, not the community, and certainly not the reader. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to trust Jimbo for now. Anomie ⚔ 01:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Anything I say is just a regurgitation of what's been said above. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could explain why, but it's not likely to be well-received, so I'll just say I am resolutely opposed to this. Banedon (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two wrongs don't make a right. This is an incredibly disruptive measure and shouldn't be implemented. Noah, BSBA^Talk 01:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Blacking out the site doesn't make any specific point; it merely disempowers readers who don't know anything about the case. Toughpigs (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time as premature. I have been critical of Jimbo and the WMF on other issues, but on this one, I find Jimbo's remarks persuasive. I think that this is a "trust our lawyers" moment and expressing open contempt for the court in this fashion only undercuts the WMF legal team. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I signed the open letter, so I know where people are coming from with this proposal. However, I think this is a step too far, right now. I believe the WMF have editor's safety in mind, and will be doing what they can to fight the lawsuit. If the WMF fails in that objective, which I understand may be out of their control, then there's discussion to be had about this sort of stuff. I foresee massive resignations/retirement of senior editors should this not go our way. WMF have to know how huge this moment is for our entire project. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Giraffer, Dan Leonard, and Cullen328. I also believe that this discussion is too rushed for such a significant action. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, This may be selfish, however, blacking out Wikipedia will be a serious inconvience and I doubt it will do much to shake the tyrranical court of the world's largest nation. `✶Qux yz ✶ 02:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Hog Farm in particular and a couple of other comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Levivich really put it best. Legoktm (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the arguments of Levivich have made a great impression on me. I do not believe that a blackout would either help the cause or express its symbolic message well. Brat Forelli🦊 03:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many people, registered or otherwise, here have made very good points why the blackout should not happen. There are ways to twist other's arms, but this is not it. It will do nothing to help the situation. – robertsky (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as a former sysop and Civil rights attorney in New York, I totally understand the intent, but having been doxxed here and on Twitter, I also know the uselessness of this. Bearian (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The notification on my Watchlist was the first time I heard of this. My initial thoughts seem to mirror (and be much better explained by) Levivich. I also trust the comment made by Jimbo that we really don't know the intricacies of this case and need to trust WMF has our best interests at heart. But ultimately, at the end of the day, assuming that anything we do on the internet is protected by some level of anonymity is a relic of the days of the early internet where we all seriously thought typing anonymously was just that. Here's the rub: it never was. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There has to be a better way to push back on issues than this. I probably don't grasp depths of the law and legal arguments, but our response should be better than this. Would this sort of thing happen whenever an unfriendly (or friendly!) government asked something we didn't like? I don't think the precedent is a good one to set. Let's view this both with today's needs and the future's needs. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Where a case is sub judice it would be madness for the WMF or its lawyers to discuss legal tactics in public. Bold public declarations are no substitute for the careful, quiet legal work needed to achieve our shared goals. A blackout would only hinder the WMF's efforts to protect the encyclopedia and users' personal information. MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A tropical cyclone cannot put out fire and could worsen it. wikt:en:斬草不除根，春風吹又生. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blackout is a nuclear response and we’re not at that stage yet. And removing access to knowledge in protest at someone trying to remove access to knowledge? Nah. That’s not a good step - it’s not going to sway the thoughts of ANI or the judge. Far better would be to turn the front page into details of what ANI are trying to do. - SchroCat (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per several above. A blackout may not solve the issue and could harm the community. I think we should support the WMF, as they have the expertise to handle the legal challenge. A drastic move like this could hurt their efforts and damage the platform's reputation. We should stay patient, let the legal process work its course, and focus on the long-term health of Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The point of a blackout is to raise public awareness of something in order to exert political pressure. There is no political pressure to be exerted here, so a blackout would be pointless. Mlb96 (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would be a pointless and ineffective gesture that would only harm our readers. The WMF has the resources to fight this in court. Ciridae (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doing a wrong as a form of response to another wrong is not the way to proceed. Noorullah (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Others have already stated plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea, and I don't think it's worth rehashing. Let's not try to stop the fire with explosives, please. Chlod (say hi!) 05:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A blackout is too drastic at this stage and even the SOPA/PIPA stuff was for 24 hours. It also appears that the WMF is preserving its right of appeal, which is important to set future precedents. At best, maybe we put a banner up at this stage. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blacking out is immature childish act. If wrongful edit done by editor let them face the consequence. And if not The truth will prevail in Indian court. TracyVaghmare91 (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this user has never contributed any edits to Wikipedia and created this account solely for the purpose of defending the Indian government/courts in this case. Cortador (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador, While it is fine to slag up the presence of people who have never edited WP before, please do not comment on people's motives, particularly as you don't know what they are. Please strike the last part of your comment. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat:, unfortunately, I think Cortador is correct on this one. The above user also reverted the contentious topic alert regarding India-Pakistan that I had posted on another user's talk page (see [7]). The account may be new, but the user isn't, otherwise they wouldn't know how to do such reverts and how to find the place where the discussions are at, and they would also not target things that are particularly connected to ANI and other issues regarding corruption in India. Nakonana (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways an means of dealing with situations like this. Making vague accusations in the middle of a !vote without any diffs to prove is not the way to do it. Follow the right process and any malfeasances will mean the removal of the vote and comments. - SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have already been reported to the appropriate notice board. Nakonana (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unless it can be clearly elucidated in an evidence-based manner how, exactly, denying access to Wikipedia for standard readers will help the situation. This may be doing something that could result in backlash at Wikipedia for no reason, worsening the situation rather than helping. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think a blackout is a good idea in theory, but this is one was haphazardly created. I think it is just an angry cry for attention to which I say the petition works just fine. If a blackout is still on the table in the future, I would suggest a date, a strict time, and how it gets implemented. Conyo14 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though I would support the site being read-only for 48 hours if people want to Do Something. The only condition; there needs to be a bit of a grace period with a 'partial blackout' to allow for reverting of vandalism, libel, etc. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A blackout would appear to the public as a cry for help, but essentially would be a gambit to put more pressure on the Wikimedia Foundation, an effort that I oppose. I am not withdrawing my signature from the Open Letter, but I have learned more about Foundation Policy since adding my name. I believe the Foundation is doing all it can to resist and defeat the Indian legal demands. See my extended comment in Discussion below. DonFB (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' as far as I know, the WMF is doing it what it can and the petition supports their efforts. I don't think pressure in this form is needed at this point. Dajasj (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would be absurdly counterproductive. Could be viewed as contempt of court, torpedoing the chances of a positive outcome. We are not in possession of all the facts, and so it would be unwise in the extreme to interfere with the WMF’s ongoing legal efforts. Bluntly: just let the adults do their job please. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judges keep patrolling these talk pages. I see some editors bad mouthing about judges, its not good , we need to be fair

The Indian court already knocked down one Wikipage. I advise to keep calm and refrain from unnecessary arguments. Hemacho328wsa (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Admittedly, I don't know all details of the case, but it'd be shocking to me if WMF legal (even considered) handing over user data to the court before all other options were exhausted. It seems to me that this is a premature RFC. I somewhat understand the rush, but this seems too far for me. Who are we protesting? WMF legal, the Indian court, or something else entirely? Is this RFC considering the impact on the case a blackout would have? Has the involvement of WMF legal been considered?
The Foundation is very rich. It has the resources to get very good lawyers for this case, and there is no reason to think that it hasn't. WMF legal is apart of the project too. They understand the dire need for editor privacy. They're doing everything they can to prevent the publication of the editors' information. I see no scenario where a blackout will help the case against WMF. It will only add more fuel to the already burning fire. WMF legal has had no input on this blackout, and we need to understand the implications of a blackout before we do a 2-day blackout. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Before I say anything, I do want to clarify that I generally stay away from larger site-wide discussions like this, and as such was relatively uninformed about what is going on with the lawsuit up until now. But from what I have read and gathered of the situation, while a blackout seems like a decent idea on paper to spread awareness, this specific proposal seems rushed and made in an abrupt manner without much thought put into it; as other editors have pointed out, it is ambiguous as to how this would be done. Flawed porposals are one thing, but flawed proposals on blocking the seventh largest website in the world is a whole other level. Say what you will about the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm personally neutral about them, but I have full trust in their legal team being able to resolve the situation to the best of their ability. I simply cannot see a scenario where such a drastic action would improve the situation. However, I could support some sort of splash page or banner being added to the site to raise awareness in a less-disruptive manner. (TL;DR: Pretty much everything that Berry said, but I already typed all of this out before he published his edit, so...) λ NegativeMP1 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I apologize in advance for my bad English. Personally, I am categorically against the blackout, because I believe that free access to Wikipedia is the most important thing for freedom of information. --CoyoteOdin (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:POINT. — Voice of Clam (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: We still have no evidence that the identities of the contributors in question are no longer protected.--Ipigott (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whatever criticisms you can make of the WMF, they do have a strong track record of protecting user privacy. Given the matter is still before the courts, they obviously have to be careful what they say publicly. While I understand why temperatures can rise over a very serious issue like this, the way some of the discussion has played out is frankly toxic, and I think everyone just needs to WP:AGF on the foundations part, and lower the temperature a notch. --Chris 10:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The WMF has not disclosed any editor information publicly or to ANI. They do not intend to do either. They are doing their best to fight and win this legal battle. A blackout would be useless at best, legally counterproductive at worst. Beyond that, what is the goal of a blackout? Raising "awareness" is not an effective way to protect our editors or preserve Wikipedia in India. It might even lead to more danger to our editors in India. Media coverage is restricted by sub judice in the same way that forced the WMF to blacklock our article on the case, so we won't get much more of it, and it doesn't change the realities of the court case, either. Toadspike [Talk] 10:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:POINT. Charcoal feather (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:POINT. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It could be preserved for if the situation escalates. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 11:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unconvinced that we collectively should have contempt for the courts of India, and certainly not contempt based on emotion (see generally, citations needed). If anything, we institutionally have to defend what we do in India and elsewhere in courtrooms up to the highest courts, and we don't do that by running away. We must institutionally show we are not afraid to defend ourselves in court. We must show to those who would bring us into court, 'we will defend what we do, so don't bother bringing suit, it will cost you, dearly (point to the opinion of the Supreme Court, which we fought and won)'. Also, oppose based on WP:POINT. Sure, countries can ultimately make it legally impossible for us, but not without a fight. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:POINT. - Donald Albury 12:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose our actions have real world consequences. Secretlondon (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because our response to information censorship should not be making information unavailable and per Secretlondon above. I think that the community often has a knee-jerk reaction to WMF-involved actions that A) assumes bad faith on the part of the WMF and B) displays a general lack of understanding of how real-world organizations function. It is not reasonable to expect the WMF to provide constant, real-time updates on active legal cases and the community should not be taking actions that risk making the situation worse. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This activism has nothing to do with the purpose of building an encyclopedia. And victims of libel must be able to hold someone accountable: either the author, or the publisher. -- Dyspophyr (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jimbo's comment, I have faith WMF will do the right thing here. Let's assume good faith for now. We can always blackout if they do comply. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I do not think the blackout will have the desired effect or meaningfully draw attention to the issue. Yue🌙 13:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeShutting down the world's encyclopedia over "considerations" would be a wild overreaction. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose all blackouts as a matter of form. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What are we protesting here? The WMF has been clear that no user information has been disclosed, and Jimbo (who has access to a lot more details about the situation than are publicly known) has indicated he's happy with how the WMF is handling this and that the WMF is working hard to defend editors[8][9][10]. The WMF has a longstanding commitment to user privacy, and all signs indicate that they're acting in accordance with that commitment. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Punishing the world for the actions of the WMF is asinine. WP is an open platform for the globe - not just for India. Punishing the globe for India's blatant overreach and WMF's wussified response does nothing to further the project, nor to fix the issue. Instead - the sitting members of the WMF should be immediately un-seated, or the WMF should be dissolved and re-formulated. No level of court in India has any jurisdiction over WP or WMF, and there is absolutely no need to comply with this order. The very worst that should happen is that any servers located within the boundaries of India should be immediately migrated out of the country and then permanently shut down and wiped. The members of the WMF who voted to comply should be immediately removed and have all levels of control or influence for the project stripped, as they are not functioning in the project's best interests. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are voting on the correct side, but you are also just making stuff up. The members of the WMF who voted to comply This never happened. The very worst that should happen is that any servers located within the boundaries of India should be immediately migrated out of the country and then permanently shut down and wiped. false. Polygnotus (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it has happened. As for you claiming my opinion as being false - that is not your place to determine. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly can you stop being an nuisance •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason why we should do a blackout just for this. From what I'm reading the WMF hasn't even given up the info yet. As Jimbo said below i believe that they will make the right choice. In my opinion a blackout will only serve to hurt the project and possibly simply just delay the inevitable. Plus we still have a petition going on that appears to be related this. ALl in all a sitewide blackout in response to something that hasn't even happened yet seems a little premature to me. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 16:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a better approach would be raising our voices against the DHC's decision through site-wide banners, without harming Wikipedia's mission. This approach allows us to protest the DHC's decision while still advocating for editors' anonymity. TheBirdsShedTears (talk)
Oppose Hondo77 (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's no indication WMF will go through with the doxing. They will make the right choice, and their present silence is likely because it is unwise to tell a court of law that you will ignore their order, even if that is what you will eventually be forced to do. – Anne drew 16:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's premature and too rushed. Phlar (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I supported the Open Letter but not this suggestion. Blackout should be the very last type of protest for this site and the current situation does not justify it. Jimbo and the WMF appear to be taking all possible steps not to reveal editor's names — and I'm one of the few people here to use my own full name so that the outcome of this case is not setting any new precedent for me, although I understand that some others do require to remain anonymous. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When we did this in the past social media wasn't a poisoned and bot-filled hellhole where paid engagement baiting was encouraged, and this will seriously backfire on the encyclopedia in the public eye and just in general beyond the usual sites which catalog 'outrage of the day'. This will be damaging and there are much better things to do rather than blocking the entire website. Nate • (chatter) 17:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is just an act of revenge - unacceptable for an encyclopedia LefterDalaka (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – While I am vehemently against the revelation of personal identifying information (PII), I understand that WMF is in a precarious position. Either they comply and potentially have a metric shit-ton of pissed-off editors while preserving future legal remedies, or they refuse to comply and potentially have Wikipedia as a whole blocked for the second-largest nation in population. I have already signed the open letter indicating my displeasure at the court's order; the proposed blackout will only hurt WMF's image in the eyes of the court, even if it is led only by the editors. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Trust Jimbo for now, can always blackout later Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There hasn't been a disclosure yet. I don't think we should be disclosing PII, but a blackout is a very serious action and I don't think in this instance it will have a positive impact on the situation. KellyDoyle (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Although I sympathize with the reasons for proposing the blackout, this should be done as a very last resort. There are much better options than restricting access to the entire site to everyone around the world, including banners. Honestly this seems quite WP:POINTy, as blacking out the entire site will accomplish exactly what is being protested against, namely restricting the free flow of information. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I haven't examined every detail but a full site blackout seems to be an inappropriate response to make a point. ^Complex/_Rational 20:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jimbo. This is way too premature. It would also solve little of our current problems. Muffin(Spreading Democracy, one edit at a time) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there is a blackout, it should be as narrowly-targeted as possible towards the entity that's responsible for this (ANI, for launching this SLAPP suit). I don't know enough to say if the Delhi High Court needs to be protested—so far, all I know is that the court wants to know who the defendants are so it can deliver summonses, which seems reasonable to me. We should try to preserve as much anonymity as possible for the defendants while following the law. I don't see what the WMF has done wrong that would warrant a protest directed at them.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to several comments suggesting WMF should never provide editors' personal information to courts: that seems like a bad precedent/policy. Here's an example: say an American investigative journalist breaks a story about a scandal where a big corporation has dumped pollutants into a town's water supply, causing several deaths. The company responds by hiring several people to edit all Wikipedia articles related to that journalist to insert false information, discrediting them. The journalist sues for defamation, and WMF receives a subpoena requesting IP addresses, needed to prove those editors really were working for the company. Should WMF comply? I think the answer is obviously yes. (The ANI case is clearly different in many respects, but that's my point—whether we should provide information to a court depends a lot on the circumstances.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (blackout)

I'm going neutral on this. Not because I don't think disclosing personal information is something WMF shouldn't do, but because I don't feel I understand well enough what the actual plan is, and I don't know what the unintended effects of this could be. For the record, I absolutely oppose disclosing personal information in any way that would make an editor publicly identifiable. Also FTR, I have zero question that those proposing/supporting this are well-intentioned. Valereee (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC) Moving to oppose, at least until we have a definite timeframe and namespaces. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't bring myself to oppose, as that would imply there isn't a need for drastic action (not to mention that more than half of the opposes have not-so-great arguments and I don't want to imply that I'm endorsing them). But I also can't support a sitewide condemnation of the WMF. It's still possible they've been on our side the whole time, in which case they literally cannot tell us so. In regard to the WMF, the best action is to make them know that we resoundingly oppose any disclosure, and we've done that. Directing the blackout at ANI and/or the Indian court would be much more effective. It would make it clear who's responsible for creating this situation, and it would create a strong disincentive for other organizations that would otherwise try to cause trouble. And to address the inevitable "but that might make them angry" and "it will give them what they want" arguments: I really don't give a damn. Protecting Wikipedia's independence and safety is more important than protecting its operations in India. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care. The fact that WMF complied with this lawsuit and provided the requested information means editors who valued their anonymity on here (with certain exceptions, such as the need to use Checkuser for Wikipedia to protect itself) no longer have any guarantee that will happen. With how the Internet has been evolving over the past couple of decades or so, especially with social media exploding in popularity, being allowed some form of privacy and having a way to contribute to something I perceived to benefit all was what attracted me to start editing Wikipedia in the first place. There is now evidence that privilege of privacy could be taken away for anything WMF may be sued for. I'm not willing to find out what I consider to be a productive edit an entity suing WMF will consider slander, and then goodbye account privacy. I'm out. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that correct? I thought they had not yet. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987:: [11] Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much @Steel1943. This is why I asked for a more detailed summary. Why does the proposal say WMF is considering this if they’ve already done it? Innisfree987 (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have not yet done it, to my knowledge, but counsel for WMF declared to the court their intent to do so. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh... the fact that WMF has agreed to comply at all is enough for me. Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sympathetic to this idea but would appreciate a more detailed summary of the backstory (asking folks to sift through voluminous threads for context is not gonna cut it here), and I also think 48 hours is way too long. Suggest starting with one hour. It’ll make clear enough the message that we can do it, still get the press we hope for, and leave open the door for escalating to a longer strike. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not against the blackout (as I believe sharing personal information of Wikipedia users is unacceptable and the blackout would give me more time to do something else), I can't support it per Hog Farm. The proposal is pointless if it depends on WMF to actually execute it (or not shut it down; they are controlling the servers, remember?). Hey WMF, we want to protest against you, would you please help us? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 20:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, firstly, most of the technical approaches suggested don't require WMF to execute them (they could easily block them, for sure), but I think it's pretty unlikely they'd block a protest against themselves, and possible that they'd even help the community implement one if needed. Now, doing so would muddy the liens between the WMF and the community, which would probably be a bad legal idea. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that while we know that the WMF and the wikipedia editor community are not the same, and actions by one do not equate to actions by the other, I have doubts that the relevant court system here is going to see it that clearly. There's a good chance that such asnaction by the community is going to be seen as an action by and through the WMF by a court that doesn't distinguish between the two. We should be careful not to undermine whatever legal recourse the WMF does have here, although I do strongly oppose the WMF's consideration to release personal information regarding editors. Hog Farm _Talk 21:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say, even if we ignore that issue, WMF will not. ANI read everything we post here, they even mentioned some of our discussions in the court. Knowing this, there's a 0% chance WMF will support the blackout as it will have a negative effect on their defense strategy (hopefully there's one). And most likely them doing nothing would be seen as supporting too, so IMO they will oppose the blackout. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 21:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hate being a fence sitter but while I am sympathetic to the idea of a blackout, there are too many unknown variables out their that I don't have to make a solid choice. Was initially supporting but eh. As long as the organisation doesn't hand over editor information, a blackout would be effective but also somewhat selfish on our part. If the personal information is handed over, the site should definitely be locked down for a lot longer than 2 days, longer again if WMF doesn't notify the community. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Upon reading Jimbo's Wales talk page comment here [12], changing to Neutral unless this situation escalates. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Unsure/Concerned. I'm currently near a weak support, but don't take it as me actually supporting something. My concern isn't with the plan, but the audience who attends the execution, mainly the Americans in the country this website and the WMF are founded upon. We could not have a more negative reputation from Americans now compared to our last blackout, something far, far more negative, and I fear that if we proceed with blacking out, the reception would lead to an even less supportive American audience who would give even less of a damn for us. We have so many attackers (read: highly motivated right-wingers/reactionaries) calling us biased, and maybe the blackout would risk us becoming even more vulnerable to American opposers. If, and help us dearly if this happens, the users are disclosed at the Delhi High Court after the blackout, we would get even more threatening legal action from American parties who are willing to side with a similar, nationalist evil to take us down. I need to be assured that our rep in this country would turn out fine if I want to proceed with support. CHANGED TO SUPPORT, WILL LEAVE A NEW COMMENT. REMOVE THIS IF YOU HAVE TO. Carlinal (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Almost a "weak" oppose, but realizing that my rationale wouldn't be an effective opposition.) The blackout protest would require lots of the (enwiki) project's resources and huger admin (or interactive admin or template?) management, especially if we can't use MediaWiki's software. Also, it requires responsibility for admins and, not to mention, creating tasks at the Phabricator if WMF would allow project-endorsed blackouts. After the blackout schedule passes, how else would the 'blackout' style be managed afterwards? Maybe save the coding for future use? George Ho (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I support this in principle, but my knowledge of this is limited, I don't have the time to sort through everything, and I'm not convinced we're quite at the point where action needs to be taken. SportingFlyer T·C 00:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I believe we are being too hasty. I believe WMF is trying to do its best to a) win the case and b) prevent complying with the subpoena. However, there is a need to communicate to WMF, if they are genuinely considering it, that disclosures in an democratically backsliding government is completely unacceptable. However, if WMF actually follows through its promise of PI disclosure, the chilling effect will be unimaginable. In that case, I would support a blackout. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Unsure. I'm currently digesting what's going on. I'm going to look for further details, and then make a final conclusion. Don't get me wrong, it's horrible that people can be in jail (or even executed) for editing Wikipedia, but I'll need some time to think about the blackout. Peace. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: It looks like the opposes are going to carry the day here, even if the margin is more like we would typically call "no consensus". I feel the opposes, SMcCandlish especially, have made stronger arguments and I do see more of the people I know and respect on that side (SOPA was different; in this case a blackout protest would be climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, a loud and visible tantrum that would do little if anything to address the actual problem)
Nevertheless, some on the support side, SnowRise and Tryptofish especially, have made strong arguments that I feel address a false dichotomy in this discussion: that our choice is either a blackout (which I feel in this instance would be more effective if done by the Hindi/Bengali editing communities) or nothing at all. If we decide against a blackout, as it seems we will, what other things could we do?
We could, of course, organize some street protests outside Indian diplomatic missions, which would help draw some attention to the issue. But I personally think that we should, at least for the duration of the lawsuit, identify if we can what IPs resolve to ANI (wouldn't you just know that would be their name?) and block them without talk page access per WP:NLT. After all, they're doing more than threatening to sue, they actually have, and certainly one would think that their lawyers would advise them not to do anything on Wikipedia anyway. Also, if we're being held in contempt for the article on the lawsuit being on Wikipedia, shouldn't it follow that they'd be in contempt for editing anything on Wikipedia, even articles about say, small towns in Iowa or obscure plant species that would have nothing to do with anything they might be interested in? The court might see it as us simply doing them a favor so they wouldn't have to rule on that issue. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I don't think I can add anything new which other people haven't already said. While I think that it's good that people want to show that they oppose what has happened and the further ramifications for the safety of free information, how exactly is a blackout going to solve the issue at hand?? Organising events like in-person protests like a few people have suggested would be a significantly better option. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Many strong arguments on both sides. I guess the question is will the WMF comply with the Indian court? Obviously it should not. If it does then we NEED to revisit this. Jimbo's reassurances hold a lot of weight for me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

General discussion (blackout)

(notified Jimbo, again) 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 17:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For how long? Valereee (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the agreement in the pre-RFC discussion was 2-3 days, to make it last until the disclosure deadline. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was suggested there, but it needs to be specified here if that's what is on the table. Valereee (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I can pick a specific timeframe, I would say 48 hours. If it's possible to edit to add it after the RfC has started, I'm okay with doing it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would do it quick and specify namespaces, Snow Rise has said it would only be article and article talk. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where was/were the pre-RFC discussion(s)? I think this proposal might also should include some details defining exactly what a "blackout all of the site " would consist of. Identical to the Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#Summary and conclusion blackout (see also Protests against SOPA and PIPA#Wikimedia community) or something else? Skynxnex (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-RFC discussion can be found here. Also, the intent was to do it in the same way as in 2012, with different wording on the blackout screen. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:2024_open_letter_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation#It's_time_to_take_a_community_read_on_the_prospect_of_protest_action. Valereee (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, edit conflict. Valereee (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Skynexnex that it would be helpful to provide more details on what "blackout" entails. Is access to all content to be blocked, or will it be available by selecting an appropriate link on a blackout screen? isaacl (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to take a position on this but instead of a "blackout" that would hide content perhaps an editing strike of some form would be better. Is a "blackout" the only way to accomplish that? 331dot (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A strike would be much harder to pull off and be much less visible. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is possible to disable all edits for 24 hours. That might be a better-targeted protest than a full blackout. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Organising a strike that is actually visible to outsiders is not easy, particularly sufficiently quickly to have any effect here. Another thing that has been suggested is a mass resignation of advanced permissions. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everyone's replies. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft and Snow Rise, instead of looking like we're badgering opposers, let's put this stuff in the discussion section instead, maybe? Valereee (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions; doing so here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsh90210: To answer; All. All. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me since we're not part of the case we can't be in contempt of that court. Further, they have no jurisdiction outside of their borders. As to office action to veto? Maybe. To the overall concept; given the rapidly impending release, we don't have weeks to hash out details of this and consider all possible ramifications. I agree there are risks. There are considerably bigger risks in failing to act. --Hammersoft (talk)

Hammersoft, my worry is that ANI will argue that wikipedia and WMF are the same, for the purposes of holding us/them/whoever in contempt of court. We know there is a difference. They have much to gain by pretending there isn't one. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very real concern, and we already can see instances in the record where ANI has done just that, and found a receptive audience in the court. We should not be under any allusions here: the WMF refusing to disclose the identities of these editors will not only be almost certain to result in a ruling of contempt, it will probably ultimately force the WMF to default the case eventually, if it continues to refuse the court's order. I still think it is by far the lesser of evils here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the sentiment here and signed the earlier petition, but I share concerns that this is poorly thought out vis-a-vis the larger context of responding to ANI's challenge. I'm also a bit concerned that (based on my subjective recollections of editors' activity and what they state on their user pages) relatively few of our editors who live in and/or write about India extensively have participated here yet. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that this could be because editors from India are extremely worried because the WMF is about to not only allow, but directly take part in, allowing three editors to be personally summoned to court with a defamation lawsuit against them personally. The definition of SLAPP. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely a major factor (I don't know if I would comment if I lived in India), but it's also late at night in India right now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they don't wanna get sued. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Rise you say The localities to be covered are anywhere that receives en.wikipedia. The namespaces to be covered will probably end up being all forward facing content (article and article talk space), but not project space but that is NOT in the proposal. None of that is in the proposal. Not the time, not the namespaces, not the localities. Valereee (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, and to be clear, if I wasn't enough in that post: these are details that are open to ongoing consensus, and which may or may not require parallel discussions, but the perspectives that have been advanced so far (and which I agree seem to make the most sense) are that article and article talk spaces should be the blacked-out namespaces. And the blackout applies to en.Wikipedia in its entirety as I understand the proposal: ergo anywhere that this site would normally be viewable at will be impacted. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But then we need another RfC. Like literally people were signing this before we specified what we were proposing. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but it is what it is. Only recommendation I can make is that we start those side discussions simultaneous to the main proposal so we don't introduce further delay. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kneejerk "I don't know so I oppose" is immensely unhelpful and shortsighted, but there are several things that would need to be worked out:

What is the blackout a response to? Telling the WMF not to disclose? I feel that would be unhelpful since we don't know what their plan is and for all intents and purposes they cannot tell us yet. They could be fully on our side, or on the brink of giving in; we don't know. So are we protesting ANI for the existential threat it's putting on Wikipedia, the Delhi High Court for entertaining it, or both?
How long will it last? Until the case ends and/or the WMF walks away? What if the WMF does disclose—will we protest for a few days and then go back to business as usual?
This will immediately become one of the top news stories in the English-speaking world (and possibly other places if other language editions join in). The crux of the issue needs to be communicated to the public very effectively in very few words.
What will be blacked out? I personally agree with LakesideMiners that it should be all of mainspace and talkspace while back-end discussion spaces are left open so we can continue addressing this.
And the elephant in the room: the WMF has veto power over much of this. Unless we're hoping they take "doesn't dictate what's on Wikipedia" to its logical extreme, they'll need to be at the table here.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a clarification to most of these points. The 48 hour timeframe is to match the court order's four-day limit while having a round number – assuming this RfC runs for at least 24 hours, it will last until the last day of the court order. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby, maybe an explanation of what "under a sealed cover" means? Sorry again for the nitpicking, but this is stuff people opining in an RfC need to know. And I'm not sure I completely understand it, myself. Even though, yes, I've kept up. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sealed cover is pretty unimportant. The important thing is whether the WMF will allow editors who were complying with WP policies and using reliable sources to be served with a *personal* defamation lawsuit against them. Whether others ever learn the editors identities or not, this should not be condoned. If Indian courts don’t want to support free information, the WMF shouldn’t pander to them trying to silence it, even if the site gets blocked in India. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to provide a cogent but brief explanation: to submit a document or exhibit under seal means that is given to the court ex parte, by one party, with no automatic presumption that the information will be shared with all parties, which is otherwise the default for most evidence entered into the record. The court is then entitled to draw factual conclusions and legal rulings based on what it discovers therein, and if the information is conclusory to outstanding legal determination, the court will typically unseal the information and distribute it to the parties.If the court determines the information is immaterial to any legal or factual conclusion, it may instead keep the information sealed in the record. Which sounds great, but in this case, it highly, highly likely (almost certain) to find the information of the identity of the parties to be material information which has to be distributed to all parties. The identity of parties in a civil litigation action is pretty much always considered basic information which all parties are entitled to as a matter of due process and other fundamental legal rights.

So the impact of the seal is negligible in this scenario. Indeed, in the most recent written order, the court already expressly anticipates and authorizes ANI to request this information, and I can think of no credible grounds on which the WMF could object, once it has released the information. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts, this also addresses a question/reservation you raised above. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a lawyer. I know what it means to file something under seal and I have done so myself. I imagine WMF considered all of what you wrote when they decided to sign a stipulation and that their counsel thought that, on balance, it was the best way forward in this case. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an attorney you know I am correct that the fact that this information is being delivered under seal is essentially a distinction without consequence. Presuming that the court trusts that the information supplied to it by the foundation is genuine, it is almost certain to hand the PII over to ANI. That is the entire thrust of my point. Any disclosure is effectively 'actual disclosure' in this case. That's deeply important to how the community should be viewing this situation.

Now you and I both know that counsel works to achieve a client's goals, not define or unduly influence the client's priorities. And that's precisely the point. We're talking about two separate issues here. Legal strategy and the collective priorities of the movement. The WMF's fiduciaries and counsel are legally positioned to exercise legal authority on behalf of the website, but they are not, and never have been, the sole custodians or shapers of this movement's values and priorities. It is entirely appropriate, if we think the WMF is endangering the future of the project--or unnecessarily, callously, or foolishly putting our editors legal or other jeopardy--for us to speak up as loud as we need to in order to exert our influence to try to put a stop to it. The community is the engine of this project, the WMF (in this case anyway) the shield and spear. But neither group alone has, or was ever intended to, have a complete monopoly on making monumental decisions that could reshape the movement for years to come, where the potential risks are severely undermining basic project functionality and viability, and putting our volunteers in danger. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally read the stipulation, which expressly leaves open the legal question (i.e., whether WMF needs to comply) that was raised on appeal, and gives ANI the right to make a motion to unseal the "basic subscriber details" (i.e., emails), which WMF can then oppose and appeal any adverse ruling. The possibility that the court may order the disclosure of email addresses to ANI is not endangering the future of the project--or unnecessarily, callously, or foolishly putting our editors legal or other jeopardy. Also, the WMF absolutely has a complete monopoly on its legal strategy in court. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as to the last point, although I've already said as much previously and tried to make the distinction here that we are talking about two intertwined and yet distinct subjects: the particularized legal strategy to arrive at the outcome of protecting the movement's volunteers and needs, and movement's collective decision making on what those priorities should actually be. You're selective quoting of complete monopoly completely divorces it from the context of what I was saying, misrepresents my point, and makes me feel you are not following the distinction I am trying to make to you. As to the rest of your post, we will simply have to agree to disagree, though I think you know I am right as to the near certainty that the seal will be obviated almost immediately after disclosure to the court. If not, I'll give you 100:1 odds on that bet. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you're an expert in Indian law? Valereee (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this will be basically the same in all common law countries (of which India is one). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, beyond just the namespaces involved, I think it will be helpful to state if the blackout intends to block all access, or allow click-through access. (I suspect the latter will gain more support.) isaacl (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien, if you're referring to me saying I don't know enough as "I don't know so I oppose", I'll just call attention to the distinction. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the WMF would veto this, we and they are in much bigger trouble than we are already. Such a veto would not end well, just like the previous times they tried to flex their muscles here. Fram (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than blacking out all of Wikipedia, I think replacing just the Main Page with neutral and factual description of the issue is warranted, for a couple of days. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems more appropriate. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was cut originally going to be part of the RfC but was cut due to rough consensus. Simpler is better. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd much more readily support the main page action, as it makes qualms I have moot. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable for you to oppose this proposal then, and make the 'main page only' proposal in a different thread or subthread. If the original proposal fails, the more limited option could then be implemented if it did receive consensus support. Personally I don't have much confidence that blacking out just the main page would accomplish much of anything. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: will it still be possible to edit the site during the blackout? My concern is that vandalism occurring just before it begins will in some sense get locked in and go infixed. BD2412 T 18:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If no one can see it, does it matter? Valereee (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a tree falls in a forest ... Sincerely, Dilettante 19:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I almost wrote that. Valereee (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it absolutely matters. Imagine if the police pressed pause on responding to (your country's emergency number here) calls for even just an hour. There would be a very large backlog. Yes, they would eventually get through said backlog, but it would take them some time. Now apply the same logic to vandalism on Wikipedia. owuh (talk | she/her) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the vandals can't keep vandalizing, we come out of the blackout with the same exact amount of vandalism that needs to be dealt with, and no one has seen it because it's been blacked out. How do we end up with a larger backlog? Valereee (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was more clear in my head. Say the site goes read-only and the last 5 changes were vandalism. People are going to try (and fail) to revert the vandalism, and then may forget about it by the time the site is no longer read-only, thus it has slipped under our radar. As a solution to this problem, we could consider only allowing extended confirmed users to make edits. owuh (talk | she/her) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the blackout ends, recent changes will still include edits from before the blackout for the next minute or so (provide one uses the right settings). We should be able to catch everything. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not technically possible without WMF intervention (see also the IANB thread, or the below "Technical implementation?" section). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, I forgot about that as in my mind the feed always changes. owuh (talk | she/her) 20:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not assuaged as to an answer. Suppose there is a blackout. If I have this link open before the blackout begins, and I make a change there and click save after the blackout has begun, does that change get saved, or would I (or anyone else doing the same thing) get some kind of error message? BD2412 T 20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is "yes, it would get saved", as would any other edit that gets submitted during the blackout. Again, it is not technically possible for the community to actually disable editing without developer intervention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron, if the WMF complies with what? A sealed cover, or publicly available disclosure? Valereee (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: They say: "All of them. The main risk is that editors get doxxed and sued, whether or not it's 'only' privately doesn't remove the chilling effect". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks! And my empathy to any editor who has to worry about that. Valereee (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very hard to believe personally that ANI will not at least learn the editors' identities once they're served with a suit, much less that the editors' identities will not become public eventually, especially if the suit proceeds. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to expand on my reason for supporting here for people to consider. While I agree with the ideal of being a free information source for all, unfortunately some countries around the world have political situations (whether through democracy/the actual will of the people, or through force) that do not enable such a goal to be achieved. I second the concerns that this may be a one off rogue court that will have its ruling overturned on a successful appeal - but to me that does not matter, because in the WMF's lawyers' view to even proceed to appeal they have to put three individuals in their own personal defense of a defamation suit against them, personally. Whether the WMF holds to its current stance of paying those editors' legal fees or not is immaterial - the monetary cost of defending oneself against a lawsuit is not the only cost that has to be considered. And it is extremely likely that even if the information is given under sealed order, that their identities as defamation defendants will become public - potentially impacting their personal and professional lives as well. It shouldn't matter whether it's one editor or three editors or a thousand editors or everyone from a country - the WMF exists to protect everyone - which does not mean sacrificing three editors for some greater good.
If this results in a financial penalty? Doesn't matter - WMF can pull out of India and it is virtually impossible that such a ruling will be enforced in US courts. If it results in Wikipedia being blocked in India? That's something for the local population and politicians to decide to rectify by reversing this court's decisions and publicly denouncing them. But putting three editors at personal risk for the "greater good" without their consent is absolutely abhorrent and should not be condoned. The WMF seems to think they are operating in the community's best interest by trying to "keep their options open". But it's time they cut their losses, pull out of India if necessary, and stop entertaining this kangaroo court's permission for a company to SLAPP editors of this site - and under no circumstance other than the editor's explicit consent to release their information to the courts in India should they allow such to be done.
This is not a case where there's a valid legal claim that should be entertained. If this were an Indian court asking for the information of an editor who had posted a threat of assassination against someone, then there would not be community backlash whatsoever for the WMF choosing to comply. What this actually is, however, is the WMF acquiescing to SLAPP - which should scare every single editor here and goes against all of what Wikipedia stands for. The lawsuit ANI has filed against the WMF and the editors is baseless from what we know - the edits in question were cited to reliable sources (in line with our policies) and would've been rectified through normal policies if those sources changed their reporting. There is no defamation case in the US from this - and the WMF should not entertain Indian courts allowing local companies to claim there is in any way - especially when it puts three editors at great personal risk (even if that risk is not financial) with no guarantee of success. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, I don't think it's fair to characterize opposers as being unconcerned because it isn't them at risk, or that that's why they're opposing. Valereee (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I want to make it very clear that this is something where I feel strongly. I never said that opposers are opposing only because it isn't them at risk. But I am saying that if you oppose, you are failing to realize that you, yourself, are at risk. This is an existential threat to the Wikimedia movement, and I am not engaging in hyperbole. And it's part of an existential threat to democracy and human rights that is happening in the real world. We are in a catastrophic place, and it does no good to pretend otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not failing to realize that I too am at risk. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Censure the WMF for storing personal information without good reason. Insist that the WMF should immediately delete all personal information that it does not have good reason to store, and find ways to hide that information so that it technically be accessed for purposes other than for what it is required. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information collected is explicitly laid out in the privacy policy. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 Hemacho328wsa (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, and what’s there is pretty poor. They may collect any information and keep it however they like, and may disclose pretty broadly in response to a warrant, subpoena, court order, law or regulation, or other judicial or administrative order. That effectively documents that they will not make much effort to protect personal information. This is pretty normal, and the only good answer is to have a policy of not retaining others’ personal information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have quite bitter feeling that voting and some discussion of this issue were closed too hastily. I believe that base principle of Wikipedia is the safety of all its editors. May br that's even more important than Authors' rights. Violating copyright only results in lost profits, while violating an editor's safety can be finished in jail. US sitizens may not take this danger literally, since civil rights here are well protected in general. But remind yourself situation in many orher countries around the globe, in Asia, Africa, South America and the Caribbean... In Russia many social networks users have been convicted for net activity. Some have to pay huge fines, while other goes to prison (far not that comfortable as american ones). And not because of posting/reposting comments, likes and sharing links and pictures but because their IP were were disclosed to government agencies. By starting doing the same Wikipedia Foundation opens the way to Fahrenheit 451 or 1984. ~Fleur~ 05:59, 19 ноября 2024 (UTC)

Brainstorming the potential wording

A very rough draft:

Imagine a world without free knowledge
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Over more than two decades, millions of people have helped make it into a global repository of knowledge. To protect our editors and maintain the encyclopedia's neutrality, privacy is a fundamental right accorded to all editors. As part of an ongoing court case, the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization responsible for hosting Wikipedia, has received orders to disclose personal information of editors. For 48/72 hours, we, the editors of the English Wikipedia, are blacking out the site in protest of this.

WP:SOPA is the closest precedent I'm aware of. I encourage other editors to write their own short messages and/or wordsmith mine (feel free to directly edit the quote instead of copy-pasting it every time). We can combine them and finalize the wording in 24–48 hours if the RfC is successful or looks like it will be. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should tack on that this is being done independently from the WMF. That it's being done by we the editors, in protest of of the actions of our host. Make it more explicit. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll also need to add some kind of "click through" to actually get to Wikipedia, and I think maybe consider something that the person reading it can do. (Contact WMF? I don't know, but something to think about.) I would not support anything which completely blocks access to Wikipedia; even the SOPA/PIPA blackout didn't do that. You could still click through and use the site afterward, and just saying "This sucks" without some kind of call to action is rather useless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so this would include being able to get to Wikipedia, even with the blackout? Like, articles and article talk pages even? Valereee (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The SOPA/PIPA blackout was done that way. I certainly can't see why we'd do this one differently. The banner certainly got "in your face" upon visiting the site, but you could click through it and get to the site. (That said, I've no problem placing the click-through at the bottom.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to specify that? Not sure it's really important enough... Valereee (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the SOPA blackout allow a click-through? Our own article, Protests against SOPA and PIPA#Wikimedia community, says The blocking action was purposely not complete; users could access Wikipedia content from the mobile interface or mirror sites, or if they disabled JavaScript or other web browser functions. Within hours of the start of the blackout, many websites posted instructions for disabling the banner, by altering URLs, using browser add-ons such as Adblock Plus or Greasemonkey, or interrupting the page from loading completely.

Which, honestly, seems like a pretty poor solution given many disruptive editors are probably pretty willing to do extra work to continue editing content while regular editors who patrol such things are less likely to intentionally work-around, in order to support the cause.

So I am still a bit (if not in the black) in the gray over what supporting this would result and I'm not keen on supporting something like this when much is vague since the details do matter. Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I remember wrong; I'd have to dig back through, but I'm pretty sure it did. Then again, it would be pretty trivial for me to GreaseMonkey around it, so maybe I did that and forgot? In any case, I certainly know it wasn't a hard database lock, you can't GreaseMonkey your way around that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be useless, as the major effect of attracting worldwide media attention would still be attained, but it would be a lost opportunity. isaacl (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I considered linking to the Open Letter and encourage signing. Of course, asking people to create an account when we've just talked about the risks of doing so is a bit tone-deaf. Encouraging IP signing when we're talking about supporting privacy is equally poor form. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Over more than two decades, millions of people have helped make it into a global repository of knowledge. To protect our editors and maintain the encyclopedia's neutrality, privacy is a fundamental right accorded to all editors. As part of an ongoing court case, the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization responsible for hosting Wikipedia, has received orders to disclose personal information of editors. Though the Wikimedia Foundation provides infrastructure, they are not responsible for content and curation. Despite this, they have blocked access to a page related to the case without the community's agreement. For 48/72 hours, we, the editors of the English Wikipedia, are blacking out the site in protest of ~~this~~ the court's request for personal information and the foundation's decision to interfere with content.

This is more unwieldy and needs even more wordsmithing obviously. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave out discussion of blocking access to the page. I feel the primary issue is disclosing editor information, and so the messaging should remain focused on this. isaacl (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's another major issue at play here as well. If this ends up setting the precedent that individuals or entities that dislike the content that wikipedia has reliably sourced about them can just sue and get a court to mandate a takedown or change of the content, then we've already lost no matter what happens with editor privacy. And I really am worried that this case is going to set the precedent for any number of entities that don't like how they are covered. Hog Farm _Talk 19:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The messaging needs to be simple, and have an achievable goal. If trying to influence what laws are passed, then a message more like "This is what Wikipedia would look like if repressive governments had their way" would be more apt. But... frankly, a blackout is unlikely to have much effect with most of the governments in question. isaacl (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A much sharper take that I don't expect to see aired, but maybe it's a good guide:

Over two decades, millions of people around the world have collaborated to make Wikipedia the world's largest reference work, a global repository of knowledge. That work is only made possible by a fundamental promise: That every volunteer who sacrifices their time and energy for this project will always be protected from retaliation when they speak truth to power. That they will never need to censor themselves for fear of persecution.
That promise is under threat from the Delhi High Court, which, amidst a lawsuit from Asian News International, has ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to reveal the personal information of its volunteers to the law. Disclosing those volunteers' identities would not only jeopardize their privacy and wellbeing, but compromise the ability of the entire project to fulfill its mission of spreading knowledge as widely as possible, for free, for everyone.
In protest of the court's order, the volunteers of English Wikipedia are blacking out the site. We strongly urge the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that supports and hosts our project, to protect the privacy of its community members from government intrusion and guarantee their right to contribute safely.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A protest of the order, not whatever WMF legal strategy is. I like that. Valereee (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely better put. A slightly toned-down wording along those lines would be

Over two decades, millions of people around the world have collaborated to make Wikipedia the world's largest reference work, a global repository of knowledge. That work is only made possible by a fundamental promise: that every volunteer who sacrifices their time and energy for this project will be protected from retaliation for contributions that improve the encyclopedia.

The next two paragraphs should remain the same IMO. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't love that, if only because things like petty vandalism and incivility don't improve the encyclopedia, but they still shouldn't be illegal by default. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the best approach for any message is to buttress a position of protecting privacy and supporting organizations that uphold this position. The immediate achievable end goal is to gain the WMF enough public support to be bold in its actions to protect privacy. isaacl (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as I would support a blackout (and I am undecided), I really like this. If I could make one suggestion, I would maybe refocus the end of the second paragraph onto volunteers rather than the project? Something like "...privacy and wellbeing, but compromise the ability of all editors to feel safe from retalitation when contributing to Wikipedia." Giraffer (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that in the current social environment, I want to stress to readers that censoring us affects them more than I want to try and persuade them to feel empathy for us. But maybe there's a middle ground? "... privacy and wellbeing, but compromise the ability of every volunteer to further the mission of spreading knowledge as widely as possible, for free, for everyone". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

made that change :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can get behind this. Perhaps we need to direct this more at ANI rather than the court though. I dislike the prospect of giving a middle finger at the court, who are doing there job (let's be good faith). Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i would normally show you the Wikipedia page on the lawsuit to prove that the Delhi High Court has absolutely not been neutral towards the WMF, but the Delhi High Court forced the WMF to take that page down, so... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd switch to support if the proposal were something to this effect. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much support this. Focusing on the court/ANI directly rather than on the WMF might be the best way to go at it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really able to invest time in wordsmithing but I agree with this sentiment. The eventual wording should focus on the court's permitting of a SLAPP lawsuit to be filed and continue, and the fact they are attempting to pressure the WMF into revealing editors' personal identities to be sued personally with a SLAPP lawsuit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Thank you for putting this together. I wholeheartedly support this proposal. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there is much I like about this wording, including the "truth to power" line, I think we should make it clear that:

ANI has not proven defamation, but is demanding identities because it alleges defamation (and this is the state of Indian law; we should not blame this on the court).
The allegedly defamatory content was cited to well-reputed news organizations
our audience are people who know very little about backstage Wikipedia, and certainly don't distinguish the WMF and the editing community

Suggestion:

"In the past two decades, millions of people around the world have collaborated to write Wikipedia, the world's largest reference work, a global repository of knowledge. That work is only made possible by a fundamental promise: that every volunteer who sacrifices their time and energy for this project will always be protected from retaliation when they speak truth to power. That they will never need to censor themselves for fear of persecution.

Wikipedia editors don't have to disclose their real-world identities, and never have. A powerful news organisation is taking legal action to force disclosure of the identities of three editors, before proving their claim that these editors defamed them (with a cited statement on Wikipedia). Disclosure would not only jeopardize the privacy and wellbeing of the editors, it would have a chilling effect and impair our independence. People claiming to represent other news organizations have also been threatening physical violence against Wikipedia editors.

The volunteers of English Wikipedia are blacking out the site to express our deep concern with this situation. We ask our readers to help protect all our editors and let us write truth safely."

HLHJ (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour close

I'm a little concerned about a 24-hour close. Valereee (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This has gotten chaotic and needs time to settle so we can assess where we're really at. Though time is not something we have much of, so hopefully this settling takes place sooner rather than later. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien Calm down guys, you all are going berserk. Indian court cases run for years if not for decades. You will see hell lot of developments during the trial. Its my honest advice dont go crazy over this, WMF is dealing withis. TRUst them. Hemacho328wsa (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ideal, I agree, but with the WMF set to take action at any time, even 24 hours runs the risk of the WMF acting before the protest action stands a chance of accomplishing its desired ends. The court's deadline is under three days away now, and there's no way WMF's counsel will wait unil the last minute, nor even much chance at that they will wait until the last day; we have to assume disclosure could happen as early as this coming morning. For that matter, they may submit to the clerk of court at just about any hour these days. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up the option of running the blackout after WMF acts (which they might not) owuh (talk | she/her) 19:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't necesarily have exactly zero value to the community, but the primary objective here is to protect the volunteers from this disclosures in the first place. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS formed by three editors on a page frequented primarily by people interested in the subject has no validity, and should be ignored by a closer. I suggest that Chaotic Enby either strike that part or propose it separately below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, it has been struck. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording used for the 24-hour close in the proposal makes it seem significantly more authoritative than it is. In actual fact the "as discussed prior" is an agreement among ~5 editors. WP:CONLEVEL is strongly at play here, and 24 hours is definitely not enough time to gain sufficient support for a measure that would affect every visitor of this site (let alone the editors not following the ANI stuff, as CONLEVEL refers to). Giraffer (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is very much not a matter of firm consensus as I see it, and if there are competing notions, we should discuss (and eventually have an !vote if it becomes necessary). That said, I can tell you with a significant degree of confidence that these attroneys are not going to wait until the last minute of their >3 remaining days. Even 24 hours is uncertain to beat the clock here, and I highly recommend that anyone wanting the blackout to have a chance of accomplishing its main goal (protecting the PII of those volunteers), err on the side of caution. Anything past 36 hours and we arguably shouldn't even waste our time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that isn't time to allow this to be well-advertised and well-attended. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we don't even know if they've already done it, they plan to do it, they're considering doing it, or they've no intent to do it. So, there's a very real chance that no matter what, this will end up being an "after the fact" protest rather than anything that can stop it, if it's going to happen. I don't think, then, that we have any need to rush. WMF almost certainly knows that we're considering doing this, and there's a very real chance we will. Maybe given that, they'll even choose to deign to give us some more information, though I wouldn't hold out hope indefinitely for that, or it might give them pause in whatever they were planning previously. But getting in a huge rush risks this being ineffective, and this is something we only get to do once. It's important to get it right. If we do this in an ineffective way, we won't help anything or anyone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Valereee (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per very valid WP:CONLEVEL concerns. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, I don't think an accelerated discussion is appropriate to determine that there is consensus to blackout the site, especially if there is no click-through access. The operational impact would be large and would imply that there is a broad community consensus in support of the action, which just can't be determined in a short period of time. (For better or worse, patience is required to determine consensus in a large group.) Something like a site banner might be more suitable, though even then I think more than 24 hours are needed to establish consensus. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical implementation?

As I said in my oppose above, it seems to me that this RfC is wildly premature, given that there is no technical implementation plan. What are the actual technical steps that people who are supporting this expect to be taken? Are those technical steps even possible, much less desirable? I understand people's haste, but it doesn't seem like there's anything to !vote on at this point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most straightforward approach to locally implement a blackout screen with a click-through to the content is to use Javascript. Although it can be worked around, the point would still be made, with the event covered by worldwide media. isaacl (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Options may greatly depend on what the desired effect will be, and how bulletproof it needs to be. Adding a large sitebanner to every page is easy, and if a dev supports us locking the database is also easy. Actually preventing all pages from being read takes extra work. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Do you know how the SOPA blackout was implemented? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we just used some js hackery and a giant central notice. See meta:English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout/Technical_FAQ#Are_there_ways_to_circumvent_the_read_blackout.3F for more on the background. There may be better ways to do this now, depending on what the requirements are. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Along with removing 'edit' rights from everyone. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this latter component is no longer possible to implement locally? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It never was, it was a config change. The (edit) permission is in "Users" and "*" (everyone) - it could be removed with a config change. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is to determine at this stage if people in principle support the idea (after all, if the answer to that is "No, we wouldn't want to do this at all", there's no use wasting time with any further consideration). If the answer is "yes", then we can move on to what the desired implementation would be, and whether or not that is technically feasible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would totally support something that protested the Indian courts/government ordering the turnover of personal data. Valereee (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat paradoxically, that is more likely to get the WMF into hot water with the court faster, while also being far less likely to achieve our aim of preventing the disclosure of the information. Anyway, the standing proposal, with its substantial number of !votes designates that we are protesting the WMF's decision to comply with the order. I mean, you could try to get another proposal off the ground, but I can't say as it feels super likely to get enough support to supplant whatever consensus result we see here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, I couldn't care less if WMF gets into "hot water" with courts it shouldn't be dealing with in the first place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly inclined to agree in this instance, but at the same time, we should try to make the situation as easy to navigate as we can, without compromising our values and needs. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to blackout everything except ANI? Or even better, just redirect everything to there until the blackout ends (joke). I do worry that even a support on this could be prevented by the WMF. What's to say they can't just veto it? Conyo14 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, the WMF could, yes. In practical reality, though, the WMF depends on the volunteer community to maintain the projects that pay their salaries, so they can't just ban all of us. If at the end of the day we say "We're doing this whether you like it or not", they can't so easily say "Oh no you're not". They can, in a technical sense, but the last time they tried that, it didn't end so well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fram's comment above (If the WMF would veto this, we and they are in much bigger trouble than we are already. Such a veto would not end well, just like the previous times they tried to flex their muscles here. is valid. If anyone would know, it's them. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It think an unprecedented 48 hour black out would benefit WMF even if they got some bad credit from being on the cover message, since is would mean that ANI would be subject to a fairly unbalanced court of public opinion. I don't see a veto on the bingo card for this. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before voting on the blackout, how does enwiki's own blackout work technically? Is it a gadget, css style, or...? George Ho (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no answers to those questions thus far. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, there is a piece of JavaScript (or more than likely back-end code) that controls how each webpage on enwiki is controlled. I can't imagine it's different with the other languages either, but the code that controls how each page is opened in a browser is a single line of code. Wikimedia already has 404 error pages in their back end in case something serious happened to their databases. So, all they need to do is replace the line that opens the page with the htcaccess file aka 404 error. The way it actually works in Wikimedia is likely even more technical, so I can't go into the depths of it. Conyo14 (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Javascript, and it's not something any volunteer has access to. To repeat: we cannot effect a complete blackout without intervention from WMF developers. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context

What recent events that I may have missed resulted in the escalation from the open letter that I signed to a proposal to temporarily black out Wikipedia? --Minoa (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minoa, it's linked at the top above. But new reporting indicates that the WMF seems to be planning to comply with giving up the three editors' email addresses to the court within the next four days. Technically, in a "sealed cover", meaning only the court gets to see it, but the ANI prosecution can quite easily still file a request for the information (or anyone in the court could leak it to them, none of us really trust the court system going on over there). And the emails in question could also quite easily have identifying info on the Wikipedia editors, such as their real names. Silver seren^C 22:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, as you can see, we seem to be on a strict, short time limit here to prevent this from happening. We are likely to fail, but many of us feel like we have to try and do something. Silver seren^C 22:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blackout has been suggested even before the open letter suggestion came up, iirc. It's just that people were more comfortable with the open letter than the blackout first time around. But after the news that WMF was ordered to issue summons to the three editors within seven days, people are discussing the blackout option again. Nakonana (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure and policy

I base my conclusion that the Wikimedia Foundation is doing everything it can to oppose the orders from India on statements that exist in Foundation policy and a narrative by a Foundation group about a previous similar foreign case. I'm actually surprised there haven't been many more cases like the one in India. Websites typically have privacy policies (that people usually don't read), which specify that user information can be released to comply with a legal order. The Wikimedia Foundation is no different. The wording of the policy, however, makes clear that the Foundation has stringent requirements that govern its decision whether to release personal information either to a domestic or foreign entity in response to a judicial order:

"We will disclose your Personal Information to public authorities or other persons in response to an official legal process only if we believe it to be legally valid."
"If you decide to use Wikimedia Sites, whether from inside or outside of the U.S., you understand that your Personal Information will be collected, transferred, stored, processed, disclosed and otherwise used in the U.S. as described in this Privacy Policy. You also understand that your information may be transferred by us from the U.S. to other countries...." From: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Privacy_policy

And from "Diff" about a case in Portugal: "We are fighting this case for two reasons: 1) to protect the user data of volunteers contributing to political biographies; and, 2) to set an important precedent protecting the ability to write biographies of living persons...." From: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/07/27/high-stakes-for-the-wikimedia-projects-in-portugal-fighting-a-strategic-lawsuit-against-public-participation-slapp/ I deplore the outing effort by the court in India (and the self-serving suit by ANI) against the Wikipedia editors, but I'm also shocked by the Wikimedia Foundation Office Action stateside to conceal the Wikipedia article about the controversy. But that's in accord with Foundation legal policy which states: "If an applicable legal order requires changes to on-wiki content, we will only make direct changes via office action if there is a legal deadline and local process is unavailable or unable...." From: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies

In sum, I condemn efforts to harrass or legally jeopardize Wikipedia editors who are following the rules, and I AGF that the Wikimedia Foundation is using all available methods to resist and overturn these ignoble attacks on free speech. DonFB (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Jimbo

Note from Jimbo Wales: Apologies for sticking this right at the top, but as this is an incredibly important situation, and I am working hard to make sure that we get a good outcome, and since my comment on this is something people ought to read before voting, I'm adding this note here kindly asking people to read what I've had to say before voting. The tl;dr is I strongly recommend against this as being both counterprodutive and unnecessary. Details below.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC) (shifted from above) Boud (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking here only for myself, not the board, not the WMF, not anyone else. A hastily organized blackout without a clear target or purpose strikes me as an unwise and bordering on silly thing to do, and I urge restraint. I urge those who have voted in favor of this proposal to reverse your votes for the timing being. The title of this is "Should a blackout be organized in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's actions" - which is of course very premature as the WMF has not released anyone's data. So what's to protest?

If the title were changed (and some of the commentary seems to hint in this direction) to make this a protest of the court's order, well, I shouldn't have to explain to anyone why that's extremely unlikely to help our actions to defend the rights of the movement in court.

I am privy to the board discussions of these matters and the disconnect between what some people seem to think is going on, and what is actually going on, is stark. Let me repeat somethiing I said the other day: "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) 22:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation behind the title is presumably that even considering releasing info should not be done. The fact that the WMF has not released data doesn't mean it has acted in a universally popular manner Sincerely, Dilettante 22:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the meaning of "considering" I can't really agree with you. I mean, all thinking adults can reasonably say (about anything): tell me all my options, all my possible courses of action, and I will decide among this. For some options, the consideration only takes a moment. I'm telling you, speaking only for myself, that I've not seen anything to give me cause for concern.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but are you saying you have not seen anything to give you cause for concern because a) you don't think the disclosure will ultimately be made to the court, b) you don't think that disclosure will reach ANI eventually, or c) you don't think that the user data being breached in this instance is as big an issue as most of the rest of us do? Because those are all drastically different scenarios that would get different nuanced responses and may or may not sooth our nerves about this crisis. It's like you're speaking to us from a quantumn super position, and as a result, your attempts to reassure us, well-intentioned though they may be, are actually exacerbating the situation.

And if your response is that the ambiguity is built into your response intentionally to avoid implicating the WMF in disclosures they don't think it is wise to make at this time, I would like to submit to you that it is highly problematic for you to be making the effort at all, if you can't speak to us with at least some substantially increased amount of clarity. And further, that using your influence to put your thumb on the scales to defeat this proposal is an issue if the extent of the reasoning you can share with us for why that should be done is so vague, and ultimately comes down "Come on, folks--you know me!" Meaning no disrespect (I have immense gratitude for you for what you have brought into our world), but that's just not good enough in this situation.

Mind you, I can understand that you feel "You know my values" should carry some weight in this community. It does, for good cause. But it's still insufficient in these circumstances, considering the import of the decisions being made, the extent to which the community has been frozen out of involvement in and insight into that decision making, the substantial evidence that we have before us that seems to contradict your assurances, and the vagaries and uncertainties of what those assurances actually mean. Efforts to comfort us that we should not be concerned about these volunteers being sacrificed so that Wikipedia can maintain a certain status with Indian courts and regulators feel very empty when we can't parse which outcome you are trying to tell us is unlikely. Especially when we contemplate the bevy of profound knock-on effects for the future of this movement, this project, and its rank-and-file volunteers that hinge on how the WMF handles this moment. I know you mean well, and we all appreciate the difficult position you are in, just as we sympathize with the foundation, but the messaging here...so problematic and inclining many of us towards less faith in a good outcome, not more--no matter our typical faith in the WMF and you personally. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, with the proposal closed, I was not sure of the value of pinging you back for this, but since I now see the same course of discussion playing out for a third time, in a third space (your user talk this time), I wonder if this and other late responses to you in this thread might not be worth reviewing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How long is "the time being"? We've repeatedly asked for a time frame, and repeatedly been rebuffed at that. Are we talking two days, two weeks, two years, two decades? That matters. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically "for the time being" means that there's no need to protest against something that, in my view, is extremely unlikely to happen. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. If the WMF did something wrong, I'd gladly join the protest myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, the problem with this assurance is that it is extremely difficult to square with repeated public court statements from the WMF's Indian counsel, including one as recently as yesterday, and it makes us wonder whether you are saying that you think it is unlikely that the WMF will turn over the information to the court (which I would like to believe, but it's hard to understand how that can be at this juncture based on WMF counsel's statements before the court), or if you are saying that you think the delivery of the information to the court under seal will protect it from disclosure to ANI. If it's the latter, I must tell you that you are operating under a misapprehension: if that info goes to the court, you can bet dollars to doughnuts it will be in the hands of ANI sooner or later. And even if it weren't the case, the WMF should still not be in the business of turning over private volunteer information in scenarios such as this, because once that info is released, there is no control over where it ends up.

So either way, it's hard to parse exactly what the assurance is that you are trying to give us here and judge whether you are operating from accurate perspectives, and either option seems hard to reconcile with those facts which we do know. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, even *considering* breaking the anonymity of three editors for a SLAPP lawsuit goes against everything I thought I knew the foundation to stand for. Even if making that stand is “sealed” (for now), even if the WMF pays their legal fees, the harm is done once anonymity is broken. Nothing stops the court from breaking that seal later. The editors will face harm to their time wasted, their personal, and professional lives even if the lawsuit is dismissed. Shut the entire site down in India if necessary - or admit that you’re willing to throw three editors under the bus for the potential “greater good”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my above comment on 'considering'. Serious people, when faced with a difficult situation, definitely should get a comprehensive view of all possible courses of action. Failing to do that wouldn't be sensible. The board of course can and should "consider" all possible alternatives, however briefly, in order to make an informed decision. There's nothing in the deliberations that I've seen that gives me any cause for concern.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been months since they started “considering” complying. It’s not premature to ask why they’ve been considering this for much more than “briefly” at this point. I will reiterate that any outcome that results in these editors information being given to this kangaroo court should have been able to be quickly and decisively shut down - even if that means facing contempt/shutdown in India. And it should not have taken months and hundreds of editors complaining after the visibility of an office action to “briefly” consider it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your wish - which I share - that the world were different than it is, but unless you're an expert in India media law, I think it might be wise to refrain from coming to conclusions too hastily. You see public reports, not the private discussions, which are thoughtful and kind and deeply about protecting the rights of volunteers. Don't jump to assumptions otherwise, as you'll be mistaken if you do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we could trust the WMF would do anything and everything to not release these editors information, they wouldn’t have offered to do so under seal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that unless I’m mistaken, the WMF or its local lawyers are who suggested filing the information sealed as a “compromise”. That’s more than considering options - and there should be no compromise that throws these editors under any bus, whether sealed, public, appealable, or otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget that one of these editors presumably only reverted an IP editor on that page. So now anyone who's doing counter-vandalism could potentially get sued? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 22:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's actually crucial to remember, and it's why privacy and a vigorous legal defense are so important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, it's one thing for the WMF to do jackshit when a transgender editor gets harrassed to the point of needing extended confirmed protection on both user and user talk pages. It's even worse that they would willingly give private info in a SLAPP lawsuit instigated by a hostile government. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so if that happened, I'd be right at the top of the list in terms of signing a protest. But, what I'm saying as clearly as I can, is that I'm not worried about that happening and so a blackout/whatever is misguided and misinformed. I am only speaking for myself, not the board and not the WMF.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be hostile and most definitely not to support the harassment of a trans editor, but isn't it the community's role to protect editors in situations like these? I thought the WMF was here to host/fund Wikipedia and serve as its legal representative. I'm open to being wrong; I'm not super familiar with WP and WMF policy. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 22:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The community doesn't have the resources to support the level of harrassment I got. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, many of us don't know you personally well (or at all). Your assurance that this conforms to your principles means little to us, as does your trust in the WMF, which, as I'm sure you are aware, many of us do not share. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, although I don't think you need to know me personally to understand that I've been here for a long time, I've been fighting hard for freedom of expression and the rights of Wikipedians and Wikipedia for a long time. I've seen a lot, I've done a lot. We didn't back down in similar circumstances, and I'm telling you from that perspective, and that I see what is going on here, that I am personally not worried and think that a protest is unwarranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is a statement that the WMF will NOT release the information. At least that is what I think would help. That is the core issue here from what I can gather. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making one's strategy public removes any leverage. Valereee (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am no lawyer, but that may be perjury as WMF already promised to disclose. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation should've considered this before they allowed their lawyers to agree to disclose. It is not our fault that they agreed to something this blatantly stupid and against everything Wikipedia purports to stand for - agreeing to throw three editors under the bus and cause irrevocable violation of their anonymity just in the name of a "greater good" or right to appeal that they may not even win. I hope when all of this is over the board discussions regarding this (at a minimum which board members agreed with this tactic) are made public so they can be swiftly given the boot by the community for even considering something like this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we will be wrestling with the organizational implications of this situation for a long time to come, and that the actions of the current iteration of WMF leadership portend reveal deep fault lines that can only lead to a serious struggle to define the culture of the foundation and the movement, moving forward. Previous episodes of mass community reservations with the leadership of the WMF (which I tended to find somewhat overblown), such as Framgate and the Knowledge Engine debacle feel very much like small potatoes when I consider the likely consequences for the movement if the WMF moves forward with disclosure here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, perjury is a charge of false testimony under oath. Lawyers do owe a duty of candour to the court, but these are managed by rules of professional conduct and the court's own discretionary powers. Knowingly making a false statement to a court as an attorney appearing before it can lead to findings of contempt and to bar disciplinary proceedings, both of which can have severe consequences, but they would not result specifically in criminal charges of perjury. That said, make no mistake that if that attorney reverses position on what they have already indicated is forthcoming from the party he represents, the court will not be happy with them. But depending on the specifics, it may lead to no real reprimand. For example, if the client just changes their mind and refuses to disclose the information, that is not on the attorney--at least not in a way that is likely to put him in a cell or lead to formal censure. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to mention this the other day, but letting you know I do trust your judgement here. The letter is a strong show of opinion against doing so. Blacking out the website before someone has even brought the documents into the court would be throwing a bone to ANI in the case. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments here Jimbo, your affirmation of the importance of privacy and legal defence is reassuring. I've changed my vote to specify conditions for my support. I really don't like that people have been using this as a platform to air grievances, sometimes rehashed old grievances, against the WMF. It has also worried me that so many people are assuming bad faith and ill intent of the WMF. Even though I think better communication could be had, I understand why the WMF is playing its cards close to the chest.

That being said, I do still feel the need for community action. Not against the WMF, but against any intimidation of our colleagues and censorship of our platform. Since the ANI lawsuit, I have personally seen several Indian editors express that they no longer feel safe editing Wikipedia. I have also witnessed Indian far-right organisations, emboldened by the ANI lawsuit, threatening not only legal action but physical violence against my colleagues here. This is something that demands a collective response. A blackout may be an escalation, but it's one in response to a terrifying situation for many of us. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you loud and clear. Like you and everyone else here, I will be watching to see what unfolds. Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the WMF has not released anyone's data - WMF has been ordered to do so in next 4 days as per this order [13], the email IDs of users will be submitted to the single judge, respondent 1(ANI) can also ask for disclosure of those details if necessary, not following these orders would mean contempt of court which Wikipedia wouldn't want to happen right? So the protest is not premature at all. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need to not fully disclose everything about the proceedings, but if the Foundation's legal team complies with the order, does the WMF plan on publicly announcing the compliance? — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand our predicament here. It's game theory: the community's nonnegotiable interest is that no PII is disclosed. There are two possibilities. Either the WMF will ultimately disclose the PII or it won't. The WMF (hopefully!) knows which is true, but the community does not. Optimistically, both seem about equally likely. The community take risks both in doing nothing and in taking drastic action, but using the information it currently has, the expected risks of doing nothing are greater. Its interest compels it to keep escalating until such time that the risk of doing nothing is alleviated. Your message here seems to imply that you have some form of information that would satisfy this, but you can't provide it for reasons beyond your control. So unless something fundamental changes in the next few days to convince the community that there is not a significant threat, we're on a crash course. Now if you guys don't mind, I'm going to go bang my head against the wall. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have been stuck on what side to support, so the only thing I did was to ask what escalated to this blackout proposal. I am kind of confused, because there seems to be a lot of emotions running extremely high, from people claiming that fascism is on the rise to people who think the blackout will achieve nothing. --Minoa (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jimbo Wales, it is an incredibly important situation, which is no justification for you to attempt to unduly influence the result of the vote. It's not strictly WP:CANVASSING, but it's probably worse. It's clearly unethical. Boud (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is wild, and not very civil. Jimbo has done nothing of the sort, and has gone out of his way to respect our autonomy and share the limited information he can while also encouraging us to respect the professionals who are working on our behalf to figure out a solution to this. Edit: I misunderstood the context, see User:Compassionate727's comment below. I apologize User:Boud for responding without realizing I was missing context. I still don't see Jimbo's action as quite as inappropriate as all that, but probably not the best approach to be sure. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Boud is referring to the comment Jimbo had left at the very top of the RfC earlier. It has since been refactored several times to make it less prominent. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I missed that context and have amended my comments above. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is in any way "clearly unethical" for me to share important information with the community and give recommendations and encouragements. I will continue to do so, particularly in an important matter such as this. I'm sure you'll agree with me that starting a protest over something that hasn't happened and about which I have good reason to think won't happen (I speak only for myself, not the board and not the WMF, giving you my experienced and informed evaluation) without at least speaking up to as many people as possible to say "hey, before you vote based on this RfC (which is mistaken in important particulars), you should know some additional facts, all the facts that I can give you, is not ideal. What is ideal is that people thoughtfully reflect on the full context and to seek out as much information as possible. It is also ideal for the WMF to continue as they have so far in terms of sharing as much information as possible given the legal and negotiating constraints. Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've specifically stated you're acting independent of your role. Why your position should be highlighted in the opening statement, above even the question, is beyond me. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I second Levivich's comment below. You have given us zero reason that we should "trust you" or "trust the WMF" when every single public information we have suggests they were at least at one point willing to do this. This includes statements from the WMF themselves on wiki and reliable sources reporting on the court proceedings where the WMF themselves (through their lawyers) offered to reveal the information under seal. Once that is done it does not matter if it's won on appeal - the damage to those editors has been done and their information is out there. So please, stop playing this game and preying on editors who haven't looked at all the information by telling them "trust me" - just admit that you think it's acceptable for the WMF to entertain, even for a second, allowing editors to be SLAPPed. There should be no "negotiation". There should be no "constraint" other than not even considering contributing to allowing editors to be SLAPPed.

The mistaken one is you. You are willing to risk causing irrevocable harm to three editors without their consent in the name of some vague "greater good" that you MAY win on appeal, but you may not. And the community should not accept their fellow editors being thrown under the bus at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're talking about "considering" and "extremely unlikely to happen" as if it's not a done deal? Perhaps I'm radically misinformed, but the WMF and ANI agreed to a consent order, which means both ANI and WMF jointly asked the court to issue this order, and the court issued the consent order, which says (emphasis mine):

... Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of with consent of parties in the following terms: ... Respondent No. 1 [ANI] shall promptly ensure that fresh summons be issued to Respondent Nos. 2-4 [editors] ... and made available to the Appellant [WMF] ... The Appellant shall serve Respondent Nos. 2-4 with the summons along with a copy of this order ... within 4 days of the summons being made available ... The Appellant shall file an affidavit ... in sealed cover disclosing all the basic subscriber details of Respondent No. 2-4 available with it ... within 7 days of service of summons ... Respondent No. I shall be at liberty to approach the Ld. Single Judge for disclosure of the information and documents filed in sealed cover, if required, which shall be considered in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are left open. ...

So: ANI and WMF jointly asked the court to order that ANI gives WMF fresh summons, and within 4 days WMF serves the summons on the editors, and within 7 days after that, WMF discloses all basic subscriber details to the court under sealed cover, and ANI can request access to that information in accordance with the law. You're not actually telling us that the WMF is "considering" not complying with that consent order it just requested, right? This order was issued 3 days ago, I think it's reasonable for the community to expect that all of this will happen within the next week or two. I don't understand how you can assert that it's "extremely unlikely to happen". Levivich (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jimbo's comment is misleading. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key lines here are "the WMF has not released anyone's data" and that we are protesting "something that hasn't happened and about which I [Jimbo Wales] have good reason to think won't happen". If it becomes clear that the editors are going to be okay, and aren't going to be outed, then obviously the RfC issue will change.

It seems to me that there have been a number of past statements, in court orders about this case, about things that didn't happen. Legal situations where parties change course, or even make assertions contrary to everyone's intentions and expectations, are hardly unique to the Indian court system. But I'm not a legal expert, and the divergence between what has happened, what the court documents seem to say, and what the WMF and Jimbo Wales have said is confusing to me. It looks like this RfC is not going to close within a day, so I hope we'll be better-informed before taking any big decision.

We have bigger problems than just this court case. We are not going to stop reporting on criticism of the media or other institutions, even in India, and we will face more pressure, and this is a situation we should tell Wikipedia's readers in India about. A short blackout might actually be helpful for that. I suspect that making it just about this court case will not be helpful, to the threatened editors or the encyclopedia. If it looks as if we are trying to pressure the court with the blackout (and I think they will tend to take it that way), I don't think it will be helpful.

So I'm with Grnrchst. I favour action, but I think, as we choose the action, we need to be clear about what we are trying to do and how. Knowing more about what's going on would help, but failing that we should stick to what we know: the media environment in India has deteriorated dramatically, this threatens Wikipedia editors, especially those in India, and we are deeply concerned and need help from our Indian readers. They have the democratic power in India. HLHJ (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich Both parties consented to the service of summons by co-defendant 1 (i.e wmf). A court summons is signed by the judge and usually serviced by plaintiff at his own cost. Here they consented to servicing by defendant. That's all. No one "yet" (except wmf and the judge), has the editor info. Not the plaintiff or their counsel, nor the public. — hako9 (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point? This whole dispute is about the WMF agreeing to give this info to the court. Levivich (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have already given it to the judge in a sealed cover. The judge may or may not disclose it to ANI's lawyers. — hako9 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF and Jimbo's track record of effectiveness, per WP:RS, as documented by Wikipedia in defending the list of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia is not exactly great. The track record per secret information sources might be better, but there are plenty of concerns. We don't know if Pavel Pernikaŭ is free yet, although April 2022 two years should in principle mean he's free (where is WMF's or Jimbo's announcement celebrating his release?); what have WMF or Jimbo told us about getting Osama Khalid and Ziyad al-Sofiani out of prison earlier than 2052 (Khalid) or 2028 (al-Sofiani)? After initially supporting the Bassel Khartabil Free Culture Fellowship named after Bassel Khartabil#Response, executed in 2015, there's so little media attention paid to continued funding for the Fellowship and recipients of the Fellowship that the info is completely missing from Wikipedia. Will the WMF and Jimbo also forget about these three Wikipedians three years after the disruption of their lives is "forgotten" about? Boud (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could do more. We could, for instance, have an annual blackout or banner on the anniversary of the imprisonment of each Wikipedia editor.
In this particular case, I think I'm right to say that
- there was a court order to publicly disclose the identities of the editors, and the WMF made vaguely reassuring noises but did not say "we won't do it no matter what", presumably because saying that could be taken as contempt of court
- the WMF appealed the order, explaining matters to the court, and the order was rescinded
- now there's another court order, for disclosure under seal to the court, and Jimbo Wales is making vaguely reassuring noises but not saying "we won't do it no matter what"
I'm not sure there's anything we as editors can do to help the three accused editors, apart from express deep concern for precedent and urge the WMF to take it really seriously, which we did in the open letter. I suspect we could harm their case. But India is not Belarus nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and we could take effective action on broader, systemic threats to Wikipedia from the decline of media freedoms and independence in India. Physical threats uttered to admins are also not okay. HLHJ (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this might be something that it would be a good idea to eventually have a committee for, that could work more closely in collaboration with the WMF, but could represent editors and ensure that both organs of the movement are operating in sync with regards to issues of freedom of information. The committee could recommend actions like annual banners, produce some informative content, meet with WMF leadership to share perspectives, organize talks on the issue at in-person events, etc. Might prevent some of the frustration that has bubbled up into a potential action that could hinder WMF's ability to act on this issue, and while a committee couldn't be kept informed on ongoing legal matters any more than the editors at large, it could help with the flow of information on other less immediately sensitive issues via reporting to the community and generate some bi-directional good faith. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying in #Another proposal: Community representative. HLHJ (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I worry that some editors here are missing the larger picture, particularly those who insist that the WMF must follow court orders. No reasonable editor would disagree that Wikipedia should follow legal requirements for disclosure when it comes to the safety and well-being of individuals. We routinely assist the police in finding those who make threats of violence, for instance, and that's a good thing. But in this case editors are being sued for furthering Wikipedia's core purpose. The content that ANI are suing over is a summary of what reliable sources have said. To let the editors who wrote and maintained that content be subject to legal proceedings sets the worst possible precedent and compromises our core function. Our articles reflect what reliable sources say, which means that they include unflattering content about millions of subjects. If those subjects can obtain private information about editors by threatening legal action, and then subject those editors to legal proceedings, we may as well give up writing about any contemporary subjects. The well-being of the three editors being sued here is of course important, but a capitulation by the WMF could run a lot deeper than that. Bishonen | tålk 22:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Should we follow defamation law? Copyright law? Other laws that don't involve safety? Levivich (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very old question and debate. It may surprise you to hear that Timothy Leary and G. Gordon Liddy went on a college campus lecture tour in 1982, and frequently discussed this subject. Although my memory is hazy, they both agreed that it was perfectly acceptable from a moral and ethical basis to ignore unjust laws, but Liddy argued that one had to follow that out to its logical outcome and suffer the legal consequences; Leary took the opposite position, as we all know, advocating becoming an outlaw. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bishonen. I also believe that, rather than give in to these unreasonable demands, the WMF should be willing to accept that India, and any other nation that tries to censor our content, will block access to Wikipedia. The howl from the unhappy populace would be a huge Streisand effect, and the ingenuity of users will find ways around that block. If the WMF caves to India, then other nations will follow, including Trump's MAGA version of America, because his DOJ will go after editors. If we end up with a proper version of Wikipedia that is only viewable in the free world, then so be it. No matter the size of the audience, Wikipedia must remain an uncensored and accurate source of information. Also, why hasn't ANI gone after the original sources of the supposed libel? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media involvement

If we do a blackout, there will almost certainly be media involvement. Even the planning for it may come to the attention of the media. We would need to have statements ready to give them, so I would like to invite workshopping of media statements here so as to communicate to the average person, who does not edit Wikipedia or maybe does not even read it, why this is of importance to them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the landing page for the previous blackout, there ought to be a landing page for a "Learn more..." link, which can provide background information and discussion of the relevant concerns for anyone interested, including the media. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity WMF v. ANI is blacklocked. Someone could copy the content from one of the mirrors to a projectspace page and update it, but they'd be painting a target on their back for ANI. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The office action remains in effect, so that content shouldn't be repeated anywhere on-wiki. That does make it more challenging to cover the background. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is making a stand against the ability of corporations to take de facto control of one of the primary waterways of public information regarding them. We are also testing the idea of the internet being the 'wild west' - the idea that anyone can dance around the internet and laugh in the face of the threatened consequences.

Wikipedia is one of the few sites that could have to ability to resist attempts by authority seeking knowledge about privately disillusioned persons. The Delhi Court and ANI is testing if it does."

Something like this could get the point and perspective across if someone/something asked. Although I wouldn't be comfortable with it being the landing page text. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the court sounds like a bad idea. Nakonana (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of !votes would be enough for this to be considered succesful - This RfC is not neutral

Someone will almost certainly claim that 50% 1 is enough for this to be a "consensus". That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what consensus is, so we should nip that in the bud if possible.

For some unimportant decisions 50% 1 may be enough. But for a drastic idea like this one that can have very negative consequence and impacts many people like this it is unfair to use 50% 1.

In certain countries you need a large majority to, for example, make constitutional changes (e.g. 75%).

Another problem is that this WP:RFC's opening statement is far from neutral. Because the non-neutral opening statement has biased the results it is difficult to gauge actual consensus. It is difficult to tell how much the misinformation affected people's opinions. So it seems like this all was a giant waste of everyone's time and we should move on. We got an encyclopedia to write. Polygnotus (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be per WP:Consensus, not per editors trying to game the outcome in this talk section. I think your last paragraph is massively untrue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: It would be unreasonable to claim that people here actually know how the courtcase went, which legal strategies are and will be used, and what the WMF and its lawyers think. And this RFC is a clear attempt at gaming the system. Note that WP:RFC explicitly says: Statement should be neutral and brief. We can't A/B test with a different universe in which a neutral RfC statement was written and people know what was going on. You need far more than 50% 1 for a blackout, just like for any other drastic decision that negatively impacts others. Polygnotus (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must be reading a different RfC than the one I am. This isn't about filing a legal brief. It's about communicating with the general public. But if you want to make an argument about the merits of the proposal, do that. Don't try to play the refs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general public does not give a shit about this kinda stuff. Obviously. The very first link in the RfC statement is to a page where 800 people put their signatures because they were misled into thinking that that would help. How is that neutral? Polygnotus (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As one of these people, I can tell you that I wasn't misled. I wasn't expecting any meaningful result from it. And it was still worth signing, to send a message to the WMF (that people do not agree with their potential course of action) and any other three letter organization that might read it. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstonishingTunesAdmirer: Thanks for proving my point. And great username btw. Polygnotus (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to ping @Tryptofish:. Polygnotus (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently you think over 800 of your fellow editors were misled by fake news. I'm done responding here, please stop pinging me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Probably far more. It is pretty easy to mislead people, as recent elections have shown. The opening statement of the RfC is very clearly biased; it takes ages to find a voice of reason if you click the links and start reading. These people are well-meaning but ill-informed. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Polygnotus (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you have linked to? The first link was chosen because it's the quickest to read and it offers an alternative to blackout. If someone gets exhausted after the grand total of one paragraph there and refuses to so much as skim the others, there's no helping them. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilettante: In the hypothetical scenario that I would start an RfC I would try to give a neutral non-biased list of factual information. Perhaps a pros and cons list. Perhaps I'd invite both sides to post their POV side by side. Ideally I would make clear what the consequences are and how they are to be achieved. The first link is 800 people and there is no section for those who disagree, because that is not how open letters work. See Social proof. It is weird that those who started this RfC didn't even try to create a neutral opening statement (or, failed this hard). Polygnotus (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the only person to complain thus far, despite over a 100 users weighing in, I'm not convinced we failed. I will agree, however, that the drafting was rushed, with less than an hour between my initial rough draft and another user posting it. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an RfC opening statement is incredibly one-sided and misleading then those who started the RfC failed in creating a neutral balanced RfC opening statement. In future I would recommend the strategies I listed above. This RfC has wasted a lot of time and the outcome cannot be used as proof one way or the other. Polygnotus (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the only person to complain thus far, despite over a 100 users weighing in, I'm not convinced it's one-sided and misleading. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more would complain if they weren't misled. Give it a try. Read the opening statements and follow the links. How long does it take you to find anyone who shares my POV? Polygnotus (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One minute unless I read every single signatory's username, which I don't think anyone is doing. It's worth noting five separate users questioned whether Jimbo followed RFCNEUTRAL in the span of 53 minutes. People are paying attention to bias.Sincerely, Dilettante 01:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that wasn't one minute, and that is only a very mild pushback that explains some of the misconceptions. If the RfC started with 2 opinions, side by side, for example mine and yours, and contained an explanation of how to achieve the blackout (what the consequences would be) then you could claim it is a fair RfC where both sides had their chance to convince people. Now what we have is a bunch of wasted community time. Poor Jimbo has had to explain that he understands his own business model... after 23 years. There are valid reasons to criticize the WMF, but stuff like this just makes the community look bad. The wisest thing they can do is ignore the open letter and this RfC. And that sets a dangerous precedent. Polygnotus (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that wasn't one minute I'm rereading something I've already read four times; yes, I know it is. If you wanted me to act like this information is completely new, it'd be 3. Still not much.

and that is only a very mild pushback that explains some of the misconceptions People on the other side weren't making strong, unrebutted claims at that point either.

If the RfC started with 2 opinions, side by side, for example mine and yours, and contained an explanation of how to achieve the blackout (what the consequences would be) then you could claim it is a fair RfC where both sides had their chance to convince people. You've already said something to this effect.

Now what we have is a bunch of wasted community time. This, I agree on, which is why I'm filing at ANRFC. Goodbye. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can leave this to an experienced closer, who I'm sure will approach it cautiously. Valereee (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are far more optimistic than I am. Polygnotus (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus, what makes you think an experienced closer would not approach this thoughtfully? I certainly would, if I were closing. Valereee (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Valereee Well, when reading that I immediately thought of the bad closes I've seen. Of course those were a small minority, but the stakes are pretty high here because there is the potential to negatively affect an ongoing courtcase that may lead to negative consequences for Wikipedians. As a pessimist I am often pleasantly surprised, while optimists get more jaded by the day. Polygnotus (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still an unjaded optimist after nearly two decades here. We do muddle through. Valereee (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that. and I am very very jealous Polygnotus (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will almost certainly claim that 50% 1 is enough for this to be a "consensus" Can you point to an example of somebody claiming that in any RFC ever? I don't think I've ever seen it. Levivich (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I am too lazy to look for it tho. But I am sure you could find such a claim if you wanted to. Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally after describing as non-neutral, I'd expect some sort of explanation of why. I'm not even sure what part of the RfC you're referring to. And if there's "misinformation", that sounds very serious and like something that deserves more than a passing mention. This whole section gives the impression that someone with a minority opinion is trying to preemptively undermine the results, which I'm sure is not your intention, so you should probably rephrase your concern. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: I did provide an explanation, have you not read it? The people who started the RfC undermined the result by not writing a neutral opening statement, see WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Polygnotus (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not neutral because it's not neutral? That's not a terribly convincing explanation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: That is the explanation you provided, not me. You can tell because you signed that comment. Polygnotus (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly neutral RfC statement. And if it weren't, and it misled participants towards a particular outcome, the nearly 2:1 oppose:support ratio would suggest that the effect was either minimal, or in favour of the oppose side. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly neutral RfC statement. I disagree. the nearly 2:1 oppose:support ratio would suggest that the effect was either minimal I believe that a better RfC statement would result in something like 10:1. Polygnotus (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting service after court decision

If the high court were to rule that Wikimedia Foundation has to disclose users' personal information, should there be a possibility of WMF cutting service from India in order to avoid following a potentially ruinous court ruling and thus users outside of India won't have their info being sent to some foreign government or other major third parties? I admit that I am entering WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. AlphaBeta135 talk 00:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking if it is an option? Sure. But I am no time traveler. And, as explained above, that probably wouldn't help. And it would make it real easy to get rid of the inconvenient truth. It is not impossible that other countries would also like that outcome. Polygnotus (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia must protect personal information from corrupt governments. Catfurball (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do that when there are no laws that protect personal information and corrupt governments are forging close alliances with tech companies? The only way to do it is to modify the Wikimedia software to force encryption at the software level such that WMF couldn’t reveal personal information even if they wanted to. Hopefully, that’s the way forward. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: A far more privacy focused MediaWiki would certainly be nice for the vandals and trolls and povpushers. Polygnotus (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that most vandals and trolls are blocked based on behavior, not based on checkuser or otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: True, but on a far more privacy focused MediaWiki it is going to be difficult if not impossible to prove that the person behind account U is account X and ip Y is ip Z. And being blocked would be solved by creating a new account. There is a lot of behaviour that is not blockworthy by itself if it happens once in a productive career, but very blockworthy if it’s a pattern that is disruptive. Polygnotus (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways to block the creation of multiple accounts without needing human intervention and personal information disclosure. You can automate that process. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Well, I am a nerd, and I know how hard it is to implement something that protects privacy but does not hinder our fight against bad actors (which is why it took so long for Temporary accounts to be developed). An 8chan model wouldn't work here methinks. What do you have in mind? Maybe write a proposal on WP:VPT. Polygnotus (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, I think I’ll pass on that. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we didn't want the WMF to have any identifying info to disclose, we could give the torunblocked right to all (established?) editors (and also warn them to use an anonymizing permanent-redirect email address, like from Spamgourmet or Simplelogin.io, and delete all the former e-mail addresses). In a few months, the WMF would not have useful IP information. But there would be side-effects.

It has often been suggested that the torunblocked right should be more broadly distributed (see the archives at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption). It is agreed that there are many valid reasons to edit over Tor, and many valid reasons to not want bad-faith editors to be able to edit over any open proxy. We have not yet managed to agree on a way to satisfy these competing interests. New ideas welcome! HLHJ (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with this. Since we cant trust WMF to not give away our identities to an oppressive regime anymore. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on current events and the rate of change, I predict we have approximately one year to implement a new security policy before the site is permanently compromised. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already edit over a VPN (since all my internet access is on one), but I have no idea if I'd be able to if I weren't an admin, since admins automatically get IPBE. I think we should really consider loosening up our policy on VPN/Tor editing, given these developments, or at least being very generous with IPBE to editors who edit from countries where they may be under threat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ and Seraphimblade: Have you ever tried to do anything over Tor? Do you know how slow it is? It is a horrible user experience. Running an exit node increases the risk of unwanted attention. And the idea that Tor protects you is, obviously, incorrect. It just inconveniences you. As for VPNs, check out the Tom Scott video. who edit from countries where they may be under threat ah yes, every country in the world. Polygnotus (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polygnotus, could you restate your proposed solution? Is it "do nothing" or am I misreading you? Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a problem is so complicated that there is no one size fits all solution that solves the problem in its entirety. Vote for judicial reform, educate the world, eat the rich. I can point out some incorrect claims and flaws in people's reasoning but I am no expert in Indian law. But just because solving the problem in its entirity is not within my capabilities that does not mean I shouldn't debunk false claims and point out flawed reasoning. If you are asking what I think the WMF and Jimbo should do then its "shut up and follow your lawyers instructions". Polygnotus (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my question, I appreciate it. Your answer reminds me of the two separate times I laughed after November 5. Once, after watching SNL's cold open that Saturday, and twice, after hearing the ACLU's representative say "we'll see you in court" to the incoming Trump admin. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I love absurdist humor like Eric Andre. Polygnotus (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Tor extensively. For reading, speed is rarely a problem; but streaming music is very borderline, and watching videos without downloading them first impossible. About monthly, a circuit gets really slow, and I have to select "New Tor circuit for this site" from the drop-down menu. If you want text-based media to load fast, then block unnecessary content with a browser firewall, it has a much bigger effect. I would be very happy to edit exclusively over Tor if I had the permission. I have also used IP addresses to detect bad-faith edits, though.

Polygnotus, I'm not sure why you imply that using Tor would fail to conceal my IP address. There is a lot of FUD about Tor, but it does conceal IP addresses.

Separately, using Tor does not mean I have to run an exit node. Running exit nodes is for experts, and as you note, can get you in trouble in some jurisdictions. Running a guard node can be done in a browser tab, and running a middle node can be done with any server, including prefab ones like Debian Freedombox. Neither is likely to draw much attention. Unless your government might jail you just for having Tor installed on your mobile, I wouldn't worry about running guard nodes or middle nodes. And most people using the Tor browser do not run any nodes at all. They just install the browser. HLHJ (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HLHJ: There are quite a few people in jail who thought Tor would protect them. And teaching people the kind of OPSEC required to actually benefit from something like Tor is impossible (and a giant waste of time). Asking everyone to use Tor would just slow everyone down and make the barrier to entry even higher. It would make much more sense to rewrite MediaWiki to be more privacy focused but that would also make life easier for bad actors. Any government/company/rich dude that wants to spy on Tor traffic can just set up a bunch of exit nodes and wait a while. Correlation attacks are not that complicated. Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For more information on how difficult it is to identify people using Tor, see Tor (network)#Attacks and limitations. According to leaks, the NSA finds it hard to do, so I think it is fairly complicated. At any rate, it's far more complex than asking the WMF for an IP address.

It is not necessary for Tor to be perfect, or to use it perfectly, or to ask everyone editing Wikipedia to use it (sorry if I unintentionally implied that), for Tor to be useful at hiding editor identities. Tools are never perfect, perfect is the enemy of good.

I'm asking if we want to hide editor IP addresses from Wikipedia. I don't know. We'd probably get more contributors from unfree countries and more sockpuppets, but it's hard to quantify. We could do a limited-time trial, with some admins authorized to terminate it early if it is a disaster, as for bots. HLHJ (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally the easiest solution, and there's so many ways to do it where the administrative overhead is virtually close to zero in the implementation. The VPN/IPBE combo described up above is one of many. Just have a user rights bot assign IPBE to the most active users and you're half-way towards a workable solution. What we see in this kind of discussion, not just here, but pretty much everywhere where ideas are discussed on Wikipedia, is a complete inability to change and progress, and more importantly, adapt to changing environments. Look at the main page as the most cited example: that design was last changed when, 20 years ago? That's unheard of in regards to any other major website, just totally unheard of. Now look at the AI/ChatGPT discussion. Same thing. More students are turning to ChatGPT (at their peril) than to Wikipedia. I keep telling people not to do this because ChatGPT is really bad at dispensing accurate information, but they don't listen. So Wikipedia usage is dropping in popularity. Now we are faced with the global decline of democracy and the cyclical recrudescence of fascism (this has happened many times throughout history, before it was even called fascism). Aside from moving to Terminus in the Outer Reach, our options are limited. Simple security protections as described up above are easy to do, yet the pushback is intense by people who should know better, but for some reason don't. We're expected to once again believe that at the end of the day, the powerful will protect the weak, but that's never been the case before. Rinse and repeat. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It ruled that the WMF had to disclose a while ago. The WMF has been appealing and arguing since then. And I feel like there was already pretty broad agreement that stepping away from India was the result that we wanted if it came to choosing between the two. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this map come from? Are partial blocks even possible when we use HTTPS? And I don't think N. Korea technically blocks Wikipedia, rather than that there are no Internet connection for ordinary people. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 00:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Availability.svg#filelinks it is used by Censorship of Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article says that partial block doesn't work (according to the section on Russia), so what does "partially blocked" mean on that map? Nakonana (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Partially" means some ISPs block it and some don't. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has already ruled that , read the order here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to take if this fails.

As is it seeming likely this RfC fails, we should have a more temperate backup plan if this blackout is decided to be too extreme. I would like to put forward the idea of posting this message, as relayed above by @Theleekycauldron:, to the main page, with a rewritten final paragraph, since the current version only works if we choose to blackout.

Over two decades, millions of people around the world have collaborated to make Wikipedia the world's largest reference work, a global repository of knowledge. That work is only made possible by a fundamental promise: That every volunteer who sacrifices their time and energy for this project will always be protected from retaliation when they speak truth to power. That they will never need to censor themselves for fear of persecution.
That promise is under threat from the Delhi High Court, which, amidst a lawsuit from Asian News International, has ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to reveal the personal information of its volunteers to the law. Disclosing those volunteers' identities would not only jeopardize their privacy and wellbeing, but compromise the ability of the entire project to fulfill its mission of spreading knowledge as widely as possible, for free, for everyone.
In protest of the court's order, the volunteers of English Wikipedia are blacking out the site. We strongly urge the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that supports and hosts our project, to protect the privacy of its community members from government intrusion and guarantee their right to contribute safely.

Instead of:

In protest of the court's order, the volunteers of English Wikipedia are blacking out the site. We strongly urge the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that supports and hosts our project, to protect the privacy of its community members from government intrusion and guarantee their right to contribute safely.

I propose the paragraph:

In protest of the court's order, we, the volunteers of English Wikipedia, strongly urge the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that supports and hosts our project, to protect the privacy of its community members from government intrusion and guarantee their right to contribute safely.

This addresses a major concern expressed in the opposes section above, the view that we would be censuring knowledge if we blacked out the site. At the same time, it should still get substantial notice and coverage, as long as the message is displayed prominently.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC has already failed. And posting this message to WP:MAIN makes little sense because almost everyone who visits is trying to find some information. The only people who care about behind the scenes stuff are the editors, not the readers. Posting this message would do nothing towards achieving our goals. Polygnotus (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you on this. The ENTIRE point of the encyclopedia is to provide our readers with valuable information, and they have a right to know that there is an ongoing case that puts our ability to do that at risk.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a) the idea that it puts our ability to do that at risk is false, and b) they don't care about Wikipedia. Showing them a banner that they won't even read does not help our cause in any way. Polygnotus (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A) In what way is that false? The article that ANI protested is currently down, so it quite clearly currently, as in right now impacting our ability to do just that.

B) I think that many people do value Wikipedia, because otherwise we wouldn't be one of the most popular websites ever. Regardless, we also need media attention right now. This would likely get at least some.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a) nope b) This issue already received media attention. How did that media attention help us achieve our goal? Polygnotus (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A) Pardon, I had it mixed up with Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. That's my bad.

However, I think it's extremely clear that allowing an organization to sue those who edit their articles will put the reliability of those articles at risk, particularly if they might actually win the right to target individual editors. To me, that is absolutely terrifying, and runs the risk of certain articles being abandoned, because of the concern of legal action. All of these things impact our readership and our reliability, and put reliability and WP:NPOV at risk.

B) Media attention is nearly always good in a situation like this, and more is better than what we already have. Inferring that we will gain nothing because you feel that we haven't already gained something is not a convincing argument.

You also immediately dropped the main argument as soon as I rebutted it, which was that no one cares about Wikipedia.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsmasher678: To me, that is absolutely terrifying I understand that fear, but we must think rationally and not make bad decisions because of fear. Media attention is nearly always good in a situation like this Nope. During a courtcase you hire a very expensive lawyer and then you let the lawyer do their job and you do not interfere in any way. You say nothing, you do nothing, and you try not to breathe too loudly. Only do and say what the lawyer asks you to do and say, and be very precise when following their instructions. the main argument as soon as I rebutted it, which was that no one cares about Wikipedia I didn't say that no one cares about Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the media thing is a matter of opinion, and not one I am willing to Climb the Reichstag over. But you did, explicitly, say that no one cares about Wikipedia. The quote was "they don't care about Wikipedia", in reference to our readers.

You have also, not once, actually justified your statement that giving out private information won't hurt our ability to serve our readers. You also never addressed my statement that the readers have a right to be directly informed of this situation, though I suppose that is dependent on the acceptance of the first point. Unless you do both of those things in your next message am going to stop engaging with what's starting to feel a bit like a digital Gish gallop.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you did, explicitly, say that no one cares about Wikipedia nope, I did not. justified your statement that giving out private information won't hurt our ability to serve our readers I did not say that. You also never addressed my statement that the readers have a right to be directly informed of this situation it is incorrect. Polygnotus (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just denied three things here.

You denied something that you objectively did, and ignored the quote that shows that.
You pretty clearly misinterpreted what I said, though i suppose i should have used the term "sentiment" instead of statement, so you couldn't misinterpret.
You say things are incorrect without providing evidence, consensus, or honestly anything other than somewhat petulant WP:IDONTLIKE IT-esque feelings. I think that I am done with this conversation, because you still haven't done the things requested in my above message. Have a good day!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support doing at least something, on the grounds that it's better than nothing. But I think that, even with the revision, the last paragraph needs further wordsmithing. Making a request isn't really a protest any more. It might be appropriate, maybe, to link to the open letter. Or maybe just omit the last paragraph, and treat it as an informational message. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, when people know nothing, doing nothing is better than doing something. Probably unwise to try another knee-jerk reaction after the previous attempt failed. Polygnotus (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just pulled a logical sleight of hand, by equating failure to get consensus with failure to accomplish something positive. But I know nothing, so no need to care what I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Well, the failure to get consensus did result in a lot of wasted time, so one could argue that it was counterproductive. But while we may disagree here: I read your userpage and I recognize that feeling and I deeply empathize for whatever that's worth (not much probably, but still). Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the second part of that. Now for the second time, please stop pinging me. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I forgot. Polygnotus (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know enough to be concerned, and that's a whole hell of a lot more than knowing nothing.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is less than nothing. Polygnotus (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a SNOW closure of this RfC, as it's pretty clear there's not a snowball's chance in hell of it gaining consensus. This RfC was malformed from the start, as it was hastily thrown together without much thought as to what exactly we were asking of the community. It's unfortunate to see how this has led to really petty and mean infighting, both within the community and between the community and the WMF, when we really should be presenting a united front to support the affected editors. This has been a very upsetting process and I'd rather we call it early than let it drag out further. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take no position on the SNOW closure - it's not for me to say. But I wanted to very much thank you and amplify dismay about infighting and fighting between "the community and the WMF" (well, at least some in the community). One of the biggest issues is that even today people are talking about "forcing the WMF to change its position" from people who clearly are mistaken, I could not be more clear, about what the WMF's position is. People have stated very confidently as if they know about what the Foundation is doing, has done, or is about to do. I'm in a position to have a good view of that, and they are mistaken. The interests and position of the community and the Foundation are aligned here, and very good people are working very hard at the WMF to defend volunteers. Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, why have you not replied to those of us questioning why we should "trust you" over the public court records and public reliable source reporting of what's going on? It's honestly absurd. Nobody is mistaken here but you. The WMF has agreed, through its lawyers, to reveal the information of these three editors to the court - under seal does not mean jack shit (excuse my language). The court itself even said that ANI could request the information even if it was under seal - and implied that they would get it. That is unacceptable and never should have been entertained by the WMF in the first place. Yet you say "trust you". Why should anyone trust that when you are defending their actions to this point? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: Can we tone it down a bit please. Jimbo is a flawed human, like every other human, and the WMF has made mistakes in the past but they are obviously trying to do the right thing here. Friendly fire is a terrible strategy. And to claim that Jimbo doesn't understand a situation you have very little knowledge of is weird. We want them to take us seriously when we complain when they are doing something wrong. So it is important to not complain when they are doing the right thing. Carrot and the stick. Polygnotus (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't trying to do the right thing here. The right thing would be to refuse under any circumstances to comply with an obvious SLAPP suit, regardless of local laws. If this means Wikipedia gets blocked in India, so be it. If this means that they face a financial penalty, well what the fuck else are our donations for? The WMF is there to protect editors and free expression - not to cower to a kangaroo court by throwing three editors under the bus in the name of some uncertain "greater good" that they may win on appeal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't trying to do the right thing here Yes they are. The right thing would be to refuse under any circumstances that is not how lawsuits work. Judges don't like it when you sing "Killing in the name". We want the WMF to be pragmatic and follow the advice of their expensive lawyers. a financial penalty, well what the fuck else are our donations for donations are not intended to pay for fines. cower to a kangaroo court they didn't. throwing three editors under the bus they didn't. They are trying to help defend those editors. Polygnotus (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. Opening editors to a SLAPP suit in any country is not okay, in my opinion, that’s shared by hundreds of other editors. These editors did not consent. They don’t want legal fees. They want to be left alone. And the WMF plans to throw them under the bus. That is NOT okay. The WMFs lawyers operate on their instruction. Since they agreed to do this (because they already did), it’s because the WMF approved this course of action. And that is NOT okay. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don’t want legal fees. The WMF is paying the legal fees... the WMF plans to throw them under the bus nonsense. There are plenty of reasons to be mad, but this isn't one of them. And if you want to be mad you should pick your target(s) better. Polygnotus (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editors involved should never be subject to legal action to begin with. They don’t want legal fees paid for. They want to be left alone and maintain their anonymity because they did nothing wrong. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editors involved should never be subject to legal action to begin with agreed, but this world is imperfect. They don’t want legal fees paid for. They want to be left alone and maintain their anonymity because they did nothing wrong. I don't recommend speaking for others. You have no idea what is going on, and your emotions are not helping. Polygnotus (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the editors involved reached out to an administrator on enwiki with their view. It is not absurd to extrapolate their view to the other two who have been AWOL. They don’t want their lawyers paid for. Nor does the community. The community expects the WMF to stand up for what’s right, not to throw three editors under the bus for the “greater good”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The community expects the WMF to stand up for what’s right they are, so now the community needs to have a bit of patience and support the WMF throw three editors under the bus they didn't. I'll be the first to criticize the WMF and Jimbo when they are doing wrong. But currently they are doing the right thing. Polygnotus (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They didn’t (yet), but they’ve told the court they’re willing to, and once that happens, it can never be undone. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to believe that this is somehow a Bad Thing™ the WMF did. But the WMF is following the advice of its lawyers and that is The Right Thing™ to do in situations like this. It would be a Bad Thing™ if the WMF started telling the judge that it does not respect the judge and the local law. Maybe ask LegalEagle to make a video about it. Polygnotus (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the advice of their lawyers is to throw three editors under the bus, they need new lawyers or to pull out of India altogether. Period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

throw three editors under the bus they haven't and wouldn't want to. When this is over, and it turns out those editors are grateful to the WMF, will you give Jimbo a wikilove cookie? Polygnotus (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn’t want to, why did their lawyers agree to in a consent order in court? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not (yet) a mindreader but most likely because their lawyers told them to do that because that is legally the best strategy. To you and me what legally is the best strategy may not make sense, but that is rather irrelevant if you want to win a court case. Jimbo and the WMF are spending a lot of time and money trying to win this court case and to protect those editors. And while they have made mistakes (like everyone else here), they are not stupid. And they are not evil. Polygnotus (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lawyers only offer options that comply with the WMF’s goals. So if the lawyers said this was the best option, it’s because the WMF was willing to reveal these editors’ information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that Jimbo and the WMF are not stupid and are not evil? Polygnotus (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don’t agree, given Jimbo and the WMF have yet to stop saying “trust us we’re doing what’s right” while making opposite claims in court. I agree they aren’t *trying* to be evil. But the effect is that since they’re ignoring community concerns, still planning to release these editors information (as confirmed by court records, even while claiming on wiki they won’t be), and have yet to actually tell us that the court records are wrong/not their plan. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 12:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well then you are wrong. Polygnotus (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I opposed the blackout above, I might be okay with a notice like this. However, the point is still unclear, and the risks are huge: to our editors in India, to our chances of winning the court case, and to enwiki's ability to stay online in India. Toadspike [Talk] 11:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a trouting for the organizers for doing such a terrible job researching wording and setting up this RFC?^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a bad idea. Polygnotus (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between SOPA/PIPA and ANI vs. WMF

Comparison between SOPA/PIPA and ANI v. WMF
Questions	SOPA/PIPA (2011–2012)	ANI v. WMF (2024–present)
What are these bills/court precedent about?	See Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act	Censored
Will these bills/court precedent have an adverse effect on Wikipedia and other WMF projects?	Yes	Yes
Are there significant public backlash against these bills/court precedent outside of WMF?	Yes	No
Are there other major organizations that openly opposed these bills/court precedent	Yes	No
Due to contentions regarding the Indian court case, this table is subject to change.

I noticed that some users mentioned the SOPA/PIPA situation (2012) and its supposed similarities with this court case. So I made a short (for now) table comparing and contrasting these scenarios. AlphaBeta135 talk 01:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the absence of outside interest should be decisive here. SOPA affected a lot of websites. This is something that affects WMF websites very specifically – at least for now. But if editors believe that the effect on our website is important enough, then there could be sufficient reason for us to draw attention to it (censored or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another #Kony2012 situation. A lot of attention but no plan. Polygnotus (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main reasons why we did a blackout in 2012 is because many major Internet companies were also doing a blackout, knowing that they too would be affected by SOPA/PIPA. However, in the 2024 case, many major companies simply don't care since they are not affected by the ruling. In other words, the main justification for the blackout does not exist. AlphaBeta135 talk 02:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I wonder why "Yes" is colored red in the second row.
2. The other two are arguable. See [14]. It's also arguable whether the last two rows should have double the weight of the second row.
(Also, please ping me when replying. There's way too much activity here and way too little progress on subscribing to subsections for me to subscribe to this page.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its like compairing Apple and Orages. There is no comparison between both. TracyVaghmare91 (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting discussion page

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout#Splitting discussion

Alternative Proposal of a Banner/popup set to show on every page

Considering that we are able to show donation banners on every page. If the blackout proposal fails, I'd propose that a banner with the a community picked message. It would still get attention due to the size that we are able to make them and would also be much easier to implement. This has been floated already but I haven't seen a formal proposal for this. A support would be in favor of a message being shown. Message would be similar to what was floated for if we went with a blackout. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has already failed. And you haven't explained how this banner/popup would help us achieve our goals. Polygnotus (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im not going to rehash everything that has been discussed ad nauseim above. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also didn't provide an explanation of how a banner/popup would help us achieve our goals above. Because it doesn't. Polygnotus (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banners get ignored most of the time; I'm not sure of their efficacy. Personally, I'd advocate taking over the MP for a day or two without a dispassionate and neutral explanation of the situation. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal: Community representative

This isn't my first choice, but something needs to break the deadlock here before things escalate further. The community is going to keep escalating until it's reassured, but it's not reasonable to expect an entity to publicly describe its approach to a legal battle. Perhaps there's a way for the whole community to be reassured privately. By my count, we have ten active enwiki arbitrators and eight stewards who count enwiki as their home wiki. All of these individuals are already entrusted to handle sensitive private information. If both the community and the WMF were to agree to this, a small number of arbs or stewards could serve as community representatives, communicating with the WMF candidly and deciding on behalf of the community whether we're satisfied with how things are moving forward. Again, this is hardly a perfect solution, but it would be an improvement from our current position. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The community is going to keep escalating until it's reassured nah, its just a few people who have not understood the situation or have been misled by misinformation, who kick up a fuss. Assurances by Jimbo have been given already several times (check his last 20 edits or so). As always the majority is rather silent. Perhaps if we don't make ourselves look bad (like what happened here) the WMF would listen to us directly, without a "community representative" in between. Polygnotus (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has gone significantly overboard in what has happened regarding it. A letter has been issued to assure WMF that we don't want personal information being released. Taking further action based on a hunch isn't going to fix anything. I understand revolutionary fervour is high, but egos must be swallowed

@Valereee this might be a somewhat odd request, but have you/someone else asked anyone from WMF about the authenticity of the email's they have been sending to the user who is affected by the case? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Fantastic Mr. Fox, not sure I'm understanding...have I asked WMF about the authenticity of emails WMF has been sending to the affected editors? Or are you asking me if I've asked WMF to verify that the emails I've received are actually from an affected editor? The answer to either is no, I haven't been in contact with WMF at all. Valereee (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one. It does feel like there is a disconnect from what the editor is saying and what Jimbo is saying, specifically around the release of personal information. The editor said in there initial email:

"I'm deeply distressed that the Wikipedia Foundation plans to disclose my personal details."

Yet people involved with WMF such as Jimbo are saying things like

"you're raising the possibility that the WMF has, contrary to our longstanding values and interests released private data and might be lying about it."

And have said they are willing to join a protest if it is released. So if the WMF emails to the editor are authentic, why is it's members seemingly against releasing it on this talk? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the first question's answer is a 'no', the second question is also probably a 'no' Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're all in this giant Telephone game, hundreds of people are trying to parse everything they can glean from any source, and miscommunications, misinterpretations, and faulty assumptions happen. Valereee (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm suggesting is that the alleged email the editor received that kicked off this sequence of events could potentially, even if incredibly unlikely, be non-existant. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty big risk to take, and for what? And this didn't kick off any sequence of events. Events were well on their way before they first emailed me. The article was suppressed on like Oct 21 or something, and I didn't get en email until Nov 2 or something. Valereee (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea, although it might be something more long term than just this issue, and Jimbo has played this role a bit for us here—although his historically unique role in the project presents both opportunities and hindrances to his acting as an information channel. Above I commented that maybe we need a committee to facilitate editor-WMF communication about ongoing issues regarding freedom of information and editor safety (although I understand that the ability of the WMF to disclose info on ongoing legal issues will always be limited), build more of a pipeline of bilateral trust around these issues, and suggest appropriate actions from the editor community. However things resolve here, I think considering the future and how to avoid this level of pent up frustration would be good. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the suggestion is definitely better than aimless (and potentially harmful) actionism. Nakonana (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Half the members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are editor representatives. I suspect the problem here is unintuitive legal restrictions, not divergent goals. That said, the cultural divide between editors and the WMF, and the resulting mistrust, have aggravated this problem. So what can we do to heal the gap?

The Board increasingly wants us to elect people with boardroomlike experience and backgrounds, which is understandable competencewise, but such people are very atypical of the average editor. I think we should ask the Board, for their 50%, to hire people who are active Wikimedia editors. I realize this is very atypical of the average boardmember.

Wikipedia editing mostly appeals to people who don't much care about credit or status (I am actively unhappy on seeing myself credited at the bottom of a mobile view). Six-figure CEO salaries appeal to people who care deeply about status; conversely, Sue Gardner, at a time when Wikipedia was much less respected, did the job for $30 000 a year, and did it well, and was an active editor whom one saw around in page histories as User:Sue Gardner. I'm not suggesting that all WMF salaries should be capped at 30k. I'm suggesting that leadership roles earn a comfortable living wage instead of the going rate for those skills, and get as little public acclaim as possible. We get what we pay for, and if we pay less in money and more in intrinsic motivation, we'd get people more sympathetic to editors, and I honestly think they'd do the job better. I hope running the WMF is not so horrendous that no-one could ever do it for love.

Generally, having more people like Sue Gardner and WhatamIdoing would help heal the divide. It can be very hard to get into editing. If any WMF employees want to learn to edit, I'd be happy to mentor them, and so would many other editors. Pseudonymity is their right, too. HLHJ (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ, I'm not sure what your idea of typical income is, but the median household income in the United States in 2023 for a person with an ordinary four-year bachelor's degree was $117,600.[15] When you complain about "six-figure salaries", you're also complaining about how much most university graduates in the US get paid.

As for "comfortable living wage", buying the median single-family house in California – not a fancy one, not one with ocean views, not one within a reasonable commuting distance of San Francisco, but just an ordinary, middle-of-the-pack house in an ordinary, middle-income area – with an officially affordable payment will require an annual income that's twice that size. If you want the WMF staff to have a "comfortable living wage", then you need to pay all the California staff a quarter million dollars a year.

As a general rule, the WMF pays the median wage for the employee's job type and local market, and for the last decade or so, they have underpaid their CEO according to every metric I have ever checked. That is more than many editors earn, especially if we compare staff in high-income countries against editors in low-income countries, but the pay is not unreasonable. In the case of the WMF's CEO position, it's one you couldn't pay me enough to take. I suggest to you that anyone who says they would do it for love doesn't know what it entails.

Also, "as little public acclaim as possible" hurts the movement. The CEO isn't just some senior paper pusher. It's a publicity role. The public acclaim benefits us, because we need policy makers to be aware of what we do, and we need other groups to partner with us. For example, when we suggest to legislatures that it'd be nice if they would modernize their copyright laws, we need them to feel something closer to "Wow, the head of the WMF! Can I get a photo op for the newspaper?" instead of "Who? Never heard of them. Her. Whatever. Nobody cares."

I do agree with you that we get what we pay for. I suggest, however, that underpaying the WMF's senior leadership will amount to a very unfortunate false economy. (Also, Sue's salary was very different by the time she left.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough, the salary was a stupid suggestion, struck. I feared it would overshadow the rest of the comment even as I posted it, and should have omitted it.

Extended content

I also clearly have no idea of how expensive it is to live in California, and my ideas of Meta:Wikimedia Foundation salaries were out-of-date; I should have checked. Checking, the mean average US salary is about 67k, according to the OECD, high by global standards, and WMF executive salaries, while sextuple that, are not high by the standards of large US nonprofits.

The cost of living in San Francisco is apparently extraordinarily high, in the top 0.1% of cities globally. The median home price in the whole county was $1.6million in 2024, with a median monthly mortgage payment of over $7k, according to local realtors (suggesting long, expensive mortgages). The median after-tax salary is $7795 (93.5k/year, nearly a three-figure salary in itself). Do we need to be asking the WMF what salary it is paying its lowest-paid San Francisco employees (at about $105million a year total payroll and about 700 employees, the WMF's internal wage ratio seems likely to be comparatively small). Do WMF employees who don't already own homes there still want to be living in San Francisco? A quarter of a million a year (250k) gross is indeed what it would take to buy the median-priced local house with mortgage payments not exceeding a third of one's gross income; earning a mere 100k after taxes will just about cover those mortgage payments and the remainder of the median cost of living (food and transport).[16][17]

This is not exactly typical of anywhere else, and I should certainly have looked it up before shooting my mouth off about other people's salaries, always a sensitive topic. I was trying to think of anything structural we could do to reduce the cultural divide; but the main cultural divide here seems to be "living in San Francisco" not "wanting a high salary". From most places in the world, the first impression is misleading.

I feel uncomfortable about the "Her, wow!" feeling in the same way as about public-facing last-editor credits and naming governments for their current leader. It may serve a purpose, but the personification seems a distorted way of seeing a collective work; it gives the impression of a concentration of power which would, in fact, be destructive to the institution. But obviously we need people with very different skills and attitudes from the average editor in the WMF. How to avoid that causing mistrust? HLHJ (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you mean "What can the WMF do, to make you trust the WMF?" However, I think that the question we need to be focusing on sounds more like "What can the community do, to make any potential defendants trust that the community is not interfering with their defense?"

I invite you to consider whether the most obvious answer to that latter question would involve a lot fewer editors talking about this in public (e.g., on this page). I hope that we can agree that the affected people do not need any more input from the armchair lawyers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disingenuous that people keep pointing back to how the response relates to the legal aspects or "winning the case" when that's clearly not what we're concerned about. Who here is crafting legal arguments? The "win" that matters is that the PII is not released and the tone of coverage on Wikipedia is not controlled by corporations and governments. If the WMF is willing to sacrifice either of these in the name of "winning the case", then it has already lost. What are you hoping we'll do if that's the path we're on? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see legal arguments on this page, then I don't think you understand what you've been reading. Every comment (pro or con) about whether the WMF has to hand over whatever information it has about these editors is a legal argument. But we have others, too; for example, I see a proposal on this page that the targeted editors be tried in absentia, and their names be disclosed only if and after they've lost, which means they would forfeit their rights to confront their accusers and mount a defense. You might have dismissed that as a stupid argument, but it is a stupid legal argument.

If you haven't read the foundation:Policy:Terms of Use, then you should do so now. This is what you have actually signed up for, and you reaffirm your acceptance of these terms with every edit (logged in or otherwise). If you're truly not okay with these terms, then you really need to stop editing.

I suggest paying particular attention to this paragraph:

You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on the Projects....For your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid taking any actions that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America and the State of California. For other countries, this is determined on a case-by-case basis. Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn users—particularly the editors, contributors, and authors—that non-U.S. authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content. We generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification against the application of such laws.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now we're seeing the consequences of this. It's an unforced error. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally no alternative. You cannot publish something on a website without being responsible for what you publish on that website. No website operator is going to protect a website user from their own words. No CEO or board member is going to allow a website to lose its immunity, it's non-profit exemption, and risk being held in contempt, in order to avoid disclosing its IP logs, so that it's users don't have to worry about being sued. The notion is patently ridiculous. The closest we can get to is not operating in countries where we don't want to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts. Levivich (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The right to anonymous free speech is protected in the US by the First Amendment. And there wouldn't even be a First Amendment if that right wasn't exercised, as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay chose to write and publish the Federalist Papers anonymously because they were challenging the dominant power of the time in their attempts to create a new country. For this reason, the right of anonymous speech has always been held in some regard in the US, unlike other countries. The argument isn't that the individual is responsible for what they publish, but that on Wikipedia, that information is supported by reliable sources, so it isn't connected to the opinion or the position of the individual. In other words, disclosing the identify of an anonymous user citing a reliable source is a bit of a red herring; this isn't about "protecting a website user from their own words". Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expressed my faith that WMF is doing everything it can, legally, to avoid complying with the order, or to overturn the order. If that fails, my preference, emotionally, is for WMF to withhold the information--presumably in violation of local law and perhaps some international protocol--and say bite me to India while that country blocks Wikipedia. I would be fine with that outcome. If WMF ultimately accedes to the order, however, it would be hard for me to accuse it of betraying the community, because its Privacy and Legal policies already clearly spell out that potential outcome, as WhatamIdoing has just shown. I know that people rarely read such website policies, but I think most people are aware they exist and have a general idea that such policies stipulate that personal information can be disclosed to comply with a court order. WMF policy also stipulates that contributors are legally responsible for their contributions. In view of those facts, I can't accuse WMF of hypocrisy or cowardice; I can just see that they are complying with their own well-established published policy.

Nevertheless, I think compliance could be calamitous for the Encyclopedia and its contributors in the long (or not-so-long) run, constituting an early descent on the proverbial slippery slope. So the question in my mind is whether WMF will decide to violate its own policy along with Indian law and withhold the information (it may be too late in that case, but other cases, home and abroad, will surely follow). I am not a lawyer, so I have no expert insight into the consequences of such a decision, but I suppose (on domestic soil at least) arrest, conviction, fine and jail for contempt of court are possibilities. I don't know what financial or physical sanctions a foreign country could impose. At the least, it seems to me the Foundation would need to revise its policy to make clear that disclosure can occur only in cases involving the most severe events, such as violent crime, terrorism and the like, and not as a response to mere political machinations intended to suppress free information and punish people who provide it. DonFB (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suppose would happen to a non-profit corporation and its board of directors and officers if it were to have a policy of not complying with certain laws or court orders in legal jurisdictions where it operates? Levivich (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact, just above I explicitly supposed: "arrest, conviction, fine and jail". I grant that my suggestion for the Foundation to modify its policy to exclude certain court demands based on their rationale could be risky. However, as we speak, the Foundation is already following a policy in which it arrogates to itself the decision whether to comply with a demand. I quoted it earlier on this page (in the section "Pressure and policy"): "We will disclose your Personal Information to public authorities or other persons in response to an official legal process only if we believe it to be legally valid" (https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Privacy_policy). Inside the U.S. (and territories) there is obviously a greater chance that the arm of the law will be able to enforce consequences; in foreign countries, not so much, I would think. On the other hand, in the U.S. I believe the chances for dire consequences likely would be much less because of the protection afforded by the First Amendment and the high bar U.S. law sets for libel--safety factors not equally present in foreign countries. But I don't think India or any other country will succeed in extraditing Foundation executives in such a dispute. DonFB (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If WMF legal hired someone like Newyorkbrad for 2 hours, explained what they're doing to him, and he came back and endorsed what Jimbo is saying, I'd trust it at that point. Right now Jimbo is just flatly contradicting a reliable source, and while I trust Jimbo, I also by definition trust reliable sources. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying but I think this doesn't do what you want it to. If the WMF had a question about consumer liability or securities law in the US, I'd agree NYB would be a great person to ask. Why we would consider him a reliable source about libel law in India, I'm not quite sure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His name came to mind by balancing trust within the community (superb) with legal experience (out of scope and jurisdiction, but a lawyer). If there's a better choice on balance, then great. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, family and friends sometimes ask my husband, who is a lawyer, for legal advice. His reply is always the same: If you're a multinational with an antitrust question, you've come to the right person. Otherwise not so much. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even see it as a need to hire someone. Just a few arbs acting in their capacity as arbs (or stewards if there's more agreement for that), sitting in and being made privy to the same info that Jimbo et al are getting, so they can confirm whether something needs to change quickly. Newyorkbrad is actually someone I could see fulfilling a role like this even just through his onwiki qualifications; in the "real world" it's common for organizations to appoint their most esteemed former members for crucial temporary roles like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight is on the board of trustees and is an experienced, trusted editor. Valereee (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Mike Peel. That's two trusted and experienced editors here on enwiki who are on the board. Valereee (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the community accepting boardmembers as scrutineers of the WMF. Especially since at Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation#Commentary, the linked ruwiki discussion has a boardmember going up and down the thread being blatantly dishonest about what's going on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there are board members who have been active editors for decades. Rosie's got like 300K edits and dozens of GAs. She is one of us, just like NYB is. Valereee (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see the community accepting boardmembers as scrutineers of the WMF". That's literally what the board is. It's the legal governing body of the Foundation and the CEO reports to them. So the fact that we have editors directly elected to the board is meaningful.

In addition to the board, the WMF legal department is not a bunch of random legal suits who don't understand the community. Our General Counsel has been at the WMF for 12 years and is an editor. Several other people in leadership of that department are admins on enwiki, dewiki, etc. These people can be trusted to do the right thing and consider the long term consequences of their actions. If that's wrong and the worst happens, we can take action then but rushing to conclusions while the process is still playing out is not fixing anything. Steven Walling • talk 21:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have more faith in the community's trusting nature than I do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the last four years of centrist liberals telling me to be patient, that Merrick Garland was building a case, that the wheels of justice turn slowly, that they are working their way from the bottom to the top, etc. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least the second time you've tried using this whole ordeal to WP:SOAPBOX your opinions about AMPOL. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong takeaway and interpretation. It's an analogy that shows how much our expectations and reality collide. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I have to agree, this is way off topic here. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then, feel free to delete my comments. It's best if everyone starts getting used to that kind of response now rather than later. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of respect for everyone who has been mentioned as a possible representative, but I feel like doing this just isn't worth it. WMF knows at this point what the community has been saying, and there's an open letter with a ton of signatures, so they don't need someone else to tell them in private. I think there could be a dilemma if the representative were to find that WMF's private position might be a problem for the community, but they are instructed by WMF not to tell the community – we cannot assume that the representative will only come back to us with reassurance. As things stand now, I think we just have to stick with the consensus of the now-closed discussion above, and wait and see what happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a legal opinion, but... it seems to me unless the person in question was hired as part of the WMF's legal representation, the discussion would not be privileged. I think that could have undesirable effects. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for community journalism

The Signpost is Wikipedia's community newspaper. You can write for The Signpost! I am writing to request that anyone or any group here submit community perspective articles related to the blackout proposal. Here are some ideas:

What is the blackout proposal, who is signing on to it, why does it matter, why should anyone care?
Leaving aside focus on this blackout proposal, what is the history of blackout proposals in Wikipedia? There have been several of these. Why is this a popular community protest option?
What are some key volunteer editor perspectives on the blackout? How is communication between the community and the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue? What open and unanswered questions would the community like to direct to the WMF through journalism?

If anyone has a submission then make it through

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions

If anyone has questions or wants to quickly get editorial review of a story perspective, then ask at

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

See journalism on the Asian New International case in the last issue at

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-11-06

The Wikipedia community speaks for itself! Support The Signpost, because the alternative is that someone else will tell your story. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we already established discussing it in the Signpost would only make it worse for the court case? Why go even further that way? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]