Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Making sure I understand the current status of what is happening ...

So, WMF agreed to provide the information being requested to identify the editors, and now the New Delhi court has issued summons for the editors involved? Is this correct? Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge, WMF hasn't agreed to hand over information, but they are considering it, and they have a short time (3-4 days) until the deadline to respond is. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@BerryForPerpetuity: An article I found published on 14 October 2024 states Wikimedia refused, but an article published 28 October 2024 states they will comply and provide the information: [1] Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you counter what Upd Edit said in an above section about their decision? Upd seems to be spouting bull, with all due respect. Carlinal (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Take my input with a grain of salt, as I don't know the details as well as I'd like. I'm also not here to 'counter' anyone. That being said, I don't think he's intentionally lying, but he is wrong. He cites Bar&Bench, and per Jimbo on 11 November: "Some people in this thread are misreading the news from Bar&Bench up above, assuming that it means that the WMF has disclosed user identities. This is not correct at all. No user information has been disclosed."

Also, from User:Quiddity (WMF) today (November 14): "Jimmy's update from 11 November remains true – no user information has been disclosed" I don't believe anyone has any reason to believe they'd actively lie about this. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is if we wait for them to disclose the information, the harm has been done. The WMF loses control over it the second they release the information, even under seal. This judge has already shown they don’t care that this is an obvious SLAPP lawsuit that will be thrown out. So what’s stopping the judge from accepting it under seal and then allowing the lawsuit to proceed against the individuals? Or releasing the individual’s identities to ANI to file individual suits against the editors? The answer is nothing. The time to stop it is before the cat is out of the bag. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and let me add this for further clarity: I am saying, speaking only for myself and not for the board and not for the WMF, but being privy to discussions, I am not worried and I'm telling everyone that a blackout of this type is unnecessary/premature/misguided, etc. People stating confidently things that aren't consistent with what I know to be true are mistaken and should relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

When is it not premature? After we have confirmation the information was released and thus the cat is out of the bag, and a precedent set that the WMF will consider catering to SLAPP lawsuits?

There is only one outcome that should be acceptable. The WMF refuses to participate in this kangaroo court proceeding - even if it comes at the expense of their operations or the site’s availability in India. If this judge refuses to entertain the arguments, it is NOT acceptable to throw the three editors under the bus personally on the off chance the WMF may win on appeal. The damage to those three editors and the chilling effect on other potential or real editors who aren’t willing to even let it get to that point will never be undone once the information is released - regardless of a win on appeal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You keep arguing, but I'm telling you repeatedly that you are mistaken about the thinking at the WMF, you are mistaken about what is going on. So you're arguing against a straw man. Probably now would be a good time to put down the stick. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You’re telling me I’m mistaken, but not how. So again, how am I mistaken? Has the WMF perjured itself by asking for a consent order (which was accepted) in which they agreed to release the information, when they never had any intent to do so? Again, instead of saying “trust me/us” show us why we should. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 14:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales, thank you for your comments.
I believe one of the main reasons for the editors’ anxiety and all the nervousness going around is the prolonged silence from the WMF.
The situation is extremely tense for the editors—if any information that could identify participants is handed over to the Indian court, it would set a worrying precedent, and many in the community are strongly opposed to letting things go in that direction.
Meanwhile, WMF remains silent, not communicating its intentions, and all the information we, as editors, receive comes from the media.
I believe that breaking this silence and having the WMF communicate openly and honestly about what’s happening and what they are planning to dowould help calm the community down.
So, even a statement like “under no circumstances will we provide personal information about our editors to the Indian court” would be enough to reduce the tension in the conversation. Rampion (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Except the WMF, through their lawyers, asked for a consent order in which they agreed to release the information… -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Remind me in the future to explain this to you. That's all I can really say. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, Rampion. I think something very satisfactory will be forthcoming soon, but in legal matters the standard advice is to not talk. There are reasons for this, including court rules about sub judice, the violation of which can stand us in contempt of court. There are very limited things which it is even legal to say. That's without even getting into specific details about legal and negotiating strategy where bringing the entire world into a transparent blow-by-blow just isn't a great idea.

I should add that the WMF has not remained silent - they have updated the community as best they can. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly Jimmy, I think there is substantial room for improvement in the WMF's approach to this situation, even taking into account all of the org's significant restrictions in these circumstances. I'm going to ask for some of the same trust you have frequently appealed for here in recent days when I say that I have significant reasons to understand and appreciate the delicate position and frustrating limitations which WMF counsel and Board members have been labouring under in this situation. And yet I still feel as if there was mismanagement of communication in this scenario.

If nothing else, the WMF has absolutely massive resources and can not possibly have been unaware that a situation like this was on the horizon with regard to India; or if they were, inside counsel's capacities need serious reinforcement. So if the WMF thought there was any chance that they might even contemplate turning over PII in a suit such as this (or even that they might end up appearing to be considering that) they should have had MASSIVE engagement with the community well before sub judice principles attached in an actual case. Many aspects of how this has all played out were avoidable, at any number of junctures. Even my empathy for the difficult position of these dedicated advocates doesn't negate a conclusion of "I really hope lessons have been learned here", for all of us, and that more robust discussion between community and foundation on these issues touching upon our principle values are immediately forthcoming, as soon as possible. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm completely against WMF releasing (even considering to release) this information at all. I'm just stating that as of right now, no information has been released, which is not what some users have been portraying. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is probably off-topic to this section but wanted to say that just that this possible news, even though it's been mischaracterized and reported erroneously, that I am feeling a chill come over my editing here on Wikipedia. I personally don't feel as safe here as I used to. That's all... - Shearonink (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Jimmy, I do take some comfort in your reassurance here. But I also think it's essential for the community to speak loudly and clearly in defense of editor privacy. It's neither premature nor misguided nor an impediment to anything WMF Legal needs to do, to reaffirm what this community stands for. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

@Jimbo Wales this is blatant overreach by the India High Court. They have absolutely zero jurisdiction over WMF or the WP project, and the WMF's compliance with this order is flatly asinine. The fact that the information is to be sealed to the court serves absolutely zero purpose other than to divulge to the state - which has only one possible outcome. The WMF board members who voted in favor of compliance & disclosure should be immediately unseated - even if it means complete dissolution of the board and an outright restructuring of the WMF. The compliance has revealed the board is not acting in the best interest of the project, and now all editors are at risk. This is flatly unacceptable on all levels, and there is now the mark of no confidence in the WMF. All servers and data physically located in India should be immediately migrated out of the country, the servers wiped and permanently shut down. In absolutely no manner or fashion is WMF or the WP project obligated to comply with this demand, or to even respond to the suit. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"The WMF board members who voted in favor of compliance & disclosure should be immediately unseated" - this is pure misinformation, please refrain from jumping to conclusions. There's not much else I can tell you other than calm down, you're getting extremely upset over things that didn't happen. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

An editor inserted the word "propoganda machine" for the live wire ANI. Now they are rattled. Thats the long story short TracyVaghmare91 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I trust Jimbo. Not unconditionally, but enough to believe him when he says that the WMF isn't releasing identity data. Now it bothers me that he isn't being more clear than that, but I trust that he has his reasons. He did make the Wikipedia, and its principles, including this one. He's earned that trust. We can always riot if it turns out he's lying; but until then, I'm going to believe he isn't. --GRuban (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The Indian government and courts need to be disregarded. If English Wikipedia gives in to nutty demands, than every government with an axe to grind will take a stab. Maybe someone from the incoming Trump Administration might make a similar set of demands about 1/6. Users in India are more than savvy enough to use VPNs to get around any sort of ban the Indian courts put in place. WP needs to stick to its guns. King Lobclaw (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The Indian Govt has a single point agenda for Wikipedia, "bend or break". In this context the Supreme Court of India is now independently questioning if Wikipedia should be treated as a publisher instead of as an intermediary. Maimontradi (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia community +

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

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

I went ahead and did a translation into Spanish:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1. I'm tbh more of a wikisourcerer than of a wikipedian, and we tend to have less trouble than you do, but still, doesn't prevent us from sympathising. — Alien  3
3 3 20:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard Incident – Hindu News

Given this ani [[2]] the idea that users name will be published in India (given the threats) is highly troublaing. We have a duty of care. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that the Wikipedia users name will be published in the ANI suit. Under Indian criminal law neither "truth" nor "verifiability" are absolute defences to the offence of defamation (and its civil consequences, ie. damages). WMF has recorded a compromise in court that they will serve the 3 editors in question by email, what is not appreciated is under Delhi High Court's procedural rules in such matters where the noticee has not appeared before the court, the email service of notice has to be only sent from the email ID of the Court registry and not from the email ID of Wikimedia or Wikimedia lawyers. So Foundation will have to disclose the email IDs to the Court registry. This procedure cannot be termed as publication Maimontradi (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The threat is possed by the threats to publish users names elsewhere for the purposes of reprisal. One garnered from the court records. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories for Times that 1,000+ Wikipedians supported something

New section so this doesn't get lost in § Almost 400 signatures. Heads up that my creation of the 1,100 category is up for discussion, along with the 1,200 category, so I suggest we all refrain from creating more of these unless it starts approaching 2,000 (!). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 22:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Petition

Normally petitions are for the benefit of elected officials, in deciding what policies to support. Because in a "democratic" system, petitions matter, since "the people" have the vote, next election cycle, and can vote elected officials out of office. Otherwise, what is a petition other than bleating sheep.

Is this case something elected officials at WMF have a choice over? It seems like an external legal matter. Do the elected board members have access to all the information about the case? I think the petition should hold accountable elected board members, if that is appropriate. But if they are not the responsible parties, I don't see the point of a petition, except as a pressure escape valve. -- GreenC 16:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no petition being signed here, rather it's an Open Letter to WMF (also to general people at large). Open letters are like expression of views whereas petitions are more structured way for demanding some actions to be taken or directions to be issued and are directed to a certain body, which then can accept or reject such a petition. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh duh. It does say, "Open Letter". I saw somewhere it was called a petition (now can't remember). The letter does say "Nevertheless, we call upon the Foundation.." which is a demand for a particular action in regards to this case, I don't know how else to read it in full context. If it were a true open letter, it would rather say something like, "We the undersigned support a position .. ", but not going so far as "calling upon" the Foundation to take an action. -- GreenC 17:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion on this has been that volunteer community is overstepping at many places (should I say presuming too many future happenings). I have mixed feelings about this type of behavior at one hand we want to support those individuals who are at the receiving end of this and on the other hand maintain common sense and logic to prevail over personal interests and opinions that few other editors are making (pushing a pov of "Modi's India", bad judiciary, etc. etc.). So since platform welcomes community edits unfiltered I could only hope that more people learn than teach. Just a quick note, India despite being democratic country does not have petition procedures for any matters except for mercy petition for capital punishment, which in itself is last option those offenders have. So not all democratic societies have petitions. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A current watchlist notice says "There is a petition to the WMF", linked here. Certes (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I cant find the link `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 18:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Petition to WMF. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, petition message leads to open letter -_- `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 18:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise of the original post here. Certainly petitions exist or have existed in many types of society, including undemocratic ones. And who, if not the WMF, is making the decisions in this case? I would hope that they are not blindly following legal advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The gross total of edits

The gross total of edits these editors have should be calculated somewhere. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

About 50.9 million. —Cryptic 23:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice. I'm an old cobol programmer, so I've written my share of sql statements in my career. Are the tables that you extract this data from populated by the Wikpedia software directly, like when you save your edits? HandsomeFella (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes; documentation here. This is a bit off-topic for this page; I'd be happy to follow up on my user talk or at WP:RAQ. —Cryptic 11:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

WMF's policy

If it has already been in WMF's privacy policy before that "We will access, use, preserve, and/or disclose your Personal Information if we reasonably believe it necessary to satisfy a valid and legally enforceable warrant, subpoena, court order, law or regulation, or other judicial or administrative order", then I wonder if such open letters would make a difference and if it's worthy complaining at all. Besides, WMF isn't a Big Brother, collecting all possible user data, it can only collect the data provided by underlying user IP and user themselves who is presumably aware of WMF's privacy policy. So I think we shouldn't make big eyes out of fear. Brandmeister^talk 10:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It's something to ask them not to choose. Just because one can doesn't mean one shall. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh, never noticed that before ... and if I had, I would have stopped editing the day that excerpt was written. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming you would withdraw from every online service that collects any data as well? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's impossible to do in this day and age with trackers almost literally everywhere, including on Wikipedia itself, so absolutely not. I have become a lot choosier in where my data gets revealed over the years; I had assumed there were some safeguards that the WMF implemented to protect its editors since that protects the integrity of this site, but that illusion of security has now disappeared. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

All entities are required to comply with law. I read the sentence as "we will comply with court orders", which they can also appeal and battle before complying at the last moment as they have done with Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation and the reason why we still have no idea whether emails have been disclosed to ANI. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that since every entity is supposed to do that. However, the lack of clarity is put into play when international law is considered, especially when the entities in a lawsuit are from different countries. In such cases, there are multiple ways to respond to such lawsuits to resolve the lawsuit; the response in this specific case is unfortunate since even though WMF apparently has in writing they could do this, they didn't have to do this since there were other options which may have satisfied the lawsuit that did not involve providing user information. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Legal ≢ ethical. I wish the WMF would make the right ethical decision, whatever legal advice they have been given. Lawyers only advise; the WMF decides. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually did read that fine print, but I always took it to mean that such information might be turned over to authorities when there is actual wrongdoing, such as child abuse. Not that it would be done in order to (perhaps) protect the WMF's rear end. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous speech is not guaranteed in the Indian Constitution. Free speech is only for Indians. Indian law, especially the old IPC and the new BNS, criminalises defamation as a criminal offence as well as civil tort. So the options for Wikimedia are very limited and we need to be very cautious to maintain safe harbour while avoiding criminal liability. On the other hand ANI has every right to pursue civil damages. To do that ANI needs a defendant and that’s where the three targeted editors come in. If we don’t provide the necessary info to serve notice on these individuals, the court may have to ban all anonymous Wikipedia content in India, including the Indian language editions provided by Wikimedia. I see a lot of negative comments against Indian judges on this page. Based on my personal experiences I can say that the Indian judiciary, especially the High Court, has a good understanding of cyber law and is very tech savvy. For example Indians all over the world can pay just 6 cents to download the entire digitised court file in the ANI case from the Delhi high court's website. I doubt if that’s the case in the US. Has anyone here tried to do it I wonder ? Maimontradi (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

IIRC court files in the US are free unless a judge orders something to be held sealed. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The San Diego Superior Court does not send out court files electronically or by fax. In addition, persons are not allowed to use cameras (including phones with cameras) to take pictures of the contents of a file. Maimontradi (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the normal court, not the appeals court, the rough but still more local equivalent of the Delhi High court: https://www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en Aaron Liu (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

At the Federal level in the US, PACER is pretty impressive and for reasonably popular cases, the Free Law Project's RECAP has free access to Pacer docs. I wish there was something similar / consistent across the states. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The Delhi High Court isn't only a court of appeal, its primarily a court of original jurisdiction. I read that PACER is only available to authorised people (? lawyers) and is very expensive (like a paywall), while the Delhi High Court e-inspection is open to all Indians anywhere in the world to access at a token court fee of just 6 cents. So back to my original question, has any Indian Wikipedia editor accessed the official court file so that this open letter can be based on what the litigants have actually filed and not assumptions from the secondary reporting or what the Foundation condescends to share to the minions ? Maimontradi (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Local appeals courts also hear quite a bit of original jurisdiction cases.
2. The PACER system only charges fees after one requests 300 pages within 3 months.
3. The aforementioned RECAP system is free, albeit an unofficial effort that has slightly less documents.
4. PACER and RECAP are only for cases that involve federal law. I'm not sure if Indian high courts are under territorial or federal jurisdiction.
Everything said in the secondary sources can and have been backed up by looking at the original case files. For example, the latest wave of anger directly quotes the court order. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The Actual court order is quite different to what is reported in your link. let fresh summons be issued to Respondents No.2 to 4 through all permissible modes, including Dasti, and emails which are to be supplied by Defendant No.1.. This means that WMF will provide email IDs to the Court Registry who will serve summons on the the 3 users. Since Court has specified Dasti (hand delivery) too, WMF has to provide their physical addresses also. On Court website it is visible that exactly 5 days after that order the ANI has paid the summons service fees vide Diary No : 5326539/2024. This probably means that ANI also knows the names and IDs of the 3 users by now, as provided by WMF.Maimontradi (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

How is that different to what we've taken from it? The entire open letter was exactly against the disclosure of the identities of the users. People hoped that the WMF would deliver the summons themselves instead of disclosing names or any other "subscriber details". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Subscriber details will still be submitted to the court after issuing summons. (b) The Appellant shall file an affidavit of service in accordance with Chapter VI, Rule 17 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 in sealed cover disclosing all the basic subscriber details of Respondent No. 2-4 available with it, along with the proof of service of summons by email within 7 days of service of summons - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly; that's what people are angry about! Aaron Liu (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"understanding of cyber law and is very tech savvy. " - We can clearly see how it is using its " tech savvy"-ness to control the internet on behalf of the Indian state.[3] - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"If we don’t provide the necessary info to serve notice on these individuals, the court may have to ban all anonymous Wikipedia content in India, including the Indian language editions provided by Wikimedia" — then so be it. It is a blatant pressuring of editors who just use reliable sources. BilboBeggins (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, people in sub section above this one are using confetti cause the signature reached certain numbers, Lol. WMF can still stand by and help editors in court cases, especially when the court examines whether their actions caused offence. Its a court case so should get decided in the court is what I believe and is what many on wikipedia are lacking in understanding. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 07:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an external court case. Many signatories want the foundation to cease operations in India instead of handing over the identities of editors. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)