This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Yes, 100% definitely! The WMF isn't perfect, I'm not perfect, the board isn't perfect. Constructive work to improve things is always super welcome.
I'm not sure what you mean about the list of roles, are you suggesting an edit to the page, or a change in policy? I just read it for the first time in a long time, and it seems right to me. For avoidance of doubt, the users in question in the ANI situation have qualified and the WMF is paying for their legal fees.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the decision if the WMF will provide assistance has little to do with the roles (admin/arbcom/cu/whatever) a person has. Vandalfighters and others without advanced permissions can also easily end up in a situation where someone decides to sue. Listing those roles makes it seems as if only those people are eligible. "WMF decides" is already the policy, so I would propose editing the page (removing the list) to reflect that. It makes sense to assist a vandalfighter without advanced permissions who follows all the rules and posts the inconvenient truth based on reliable sources; and it also makes sense to not assist an admin who posts libel. Polygnotus (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page also says In its sole discretion, WMF may determine that the Legal Fees Assistance Program may apply to users acting in an administrator, arbitrator, email response, or project governance function that is not among those specified in this document (listed above). as well. I would classify that fighting vandalism is a project governance function since it is a policy here. – robertsky (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't share anything other than my pride in the entire board and the staff. Seriously. You'd all be overjoyed if you could hear it. (As ever, I only speak for myself as a Wikipedian who is passionate about neutrality, truth, privacy, and individual (human) rights.) Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me want to believe; I don't think "you'd all be overjoyed" comes from nowhere. But paraphrasing my earlier comment about this response, the circumstances will compel the community to take drastic action. With the limited information the community has, it's a coin flip whether a "nightmare scenario" comes to pass—namely that PII is disclosed in any way, ANI is successful in getting content changed, or anything else that indicates to other organizations that suing editors can be effective. Until those 50/50 odds change, it's a choice between which is more dangerous: doing nothing as a nightmare scenario approaches or taking drastic action over a false alarm. Most will be more apprehensive of the former. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coin flip and 50/50 mean there's an equal chance, not that we don't know what the chances are. There may in reality be a 1% or even 0% chance of one of two outcomes. The fact we don't know doesn't make the chances equal. Valereee (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we have imperfect information and can't know that "true" probability. Since the evidence for each option occurring is roughly equal, the community is going to go off of subjective probability and consider both of the options about equally likely. All of the discussion and frantic calls for action are a consequence of that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence for each option is nowhere near roughly equal because we have no idea what real evidence there actually is. There's a lot of heat. That's not evidence. Valereee (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Valereee, none of that obviates the core of TBUA's argument. They clearly understand (and agree with) what you are saying about the knightian uncertainty involved here. In fact, it is a cornerstone of their point. They are saying that, plugging that uncertainty into the overall analysis of what is the safest course of action here (both in terms of upholding the movement's values and protecting both the project's overall future and the immediate safety and well-being of these volunteers), they believe non-disclosure (and taking the very likely consequences of default in that suit, including both a large default judgment and a fast track towards regulatory reclassification and/or blocking of the site in India) is the lesser of two evils. In short, I think you are directing your efforts to the side of their point, not addressing it.
Besides, if you want to talk about the actual odds, based on what we actually know, we do have several repeated, consistent indicators from the in-court representations made by WMF's counsel in relation to this case that in fact they have already agreed to divulge the information to the court (which, make no mistake, if true would in this case make it all but 100% certain that ANI will have that information sooner or later.) On the other side of this evidence for trying to divine the "true probability" you refer to, we have Jimmy saying "Trust me, it's going to be alright." but while being unwilling or unable to say why it will be so, or even what "alright" even means in this situation--where it very easily could mean "Yes the information is going to be divulged, but the Board just doesn't see that as the end of the world in the greater context here, and neither do I."
Now different community members are free to (and will) weigh that assurance (worryingly vague but coming from probably the most respected figure in the Wikimedia movement, and one certainly on the other side of our informational asymmetry here) vs. the in-court statements differently. My mixed feelings on that subject can be found here. But TBUA's point (and their resulting position) on what the appropriate risk treatment of this situation is, in light of the knightian uncertainty here, is perfectly cogent and valid. So are the positions of those who have enough faith in Jimmy to trust his assurances in light of his track record and the degree of information he has access to here that the community at large does not.
But, speaking for myself, the longer this goes on, and the more we learn, the more I worry that Jimmy's notion of an 'acceptable outcome' to this situation is significantly different from mine, and that of the rest of the community that overwhelmingly wants no disclosure of PII to the court in this case. Believe me, I'm crossing my fingers to be wrong about that and to have an outcome where I have to come back to this page to say "I'm sorry I couldn't trust you more completely on this one, but phew is that a relief!" But my hope in that outcome is quite diminished at this moment in time, if I am honest. And part of that is because, whatever his possibly valid reasons, the ambiguity about just what he is trying to assure us of is clearly and intentionally designed into his comments on this matter. SnowRise let's rap19:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm really, really pulling for that interpretation to to bear out. It sure seems to be indicating a best case scenario outcome on the issue the community is most anxious about. I'm just not prepared to assume it yet, and I understand why many are still inclined to urge for proactive action until we know for sure. SnowRise let's rap23:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation of the entire suit, WMF is only using these editors(especially the one living in india) as pawns to fight this case, so they can preserve their intermediary status in India (because under India's draconian IT laws, Wikipedia can be considered a publisher). If those editors win by proving how everything that ANI has problem with is in fact factual and not defamatory then it's good for everyone involved. If not, WMF loses and has to pay the damages( 200k $ is a mere pocket change for it anyway) or worse, cease all operations in India because the court will consider it a publisher of all the content on it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ Also cases in india take a long time to reach a conclusion. This case may even go for a decade, that buys WMF plenty of time to stay in india and claim to be an intermediary. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Supreme Court has discretionary certiorari power over the state High Courts, but as in most other systems descended of the common law model, it will only take up cases concerning certain enumerated matters and those pertaining to fundamental constitutional rights. And it will only hear a small fraction of the cases it is entitled to entertain and which it is petitioned to take. I don't know the exact figure when it comes to the Delhi High Court (which has a bit of an aggressive track record in rulings related to defamation in recent years) but suffice it to say, it's certainly quite possible the Supreme Court will not take up this case om appeal. SnowRise let's rap08:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Summons have been issued and emails have been handed over to the Delhi court. Now with enough bribes to the right people, ANI will get it's hands on it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and emails have been handed over to the Delhi court. Can you please quote the part of the document that says this? I couldn't find it. My read of that document is that WMF served paperwork to the 3 editors on the court's behalf, without disclosing any PII to the court. I could be mistaken of course, so feel free to help me interpret this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I misread the order. Assuming that summons were issued on 14 November [2] , WMF still has 2 more days to disclose the details (see where the consent order states :(b) The Appellant shall file an affidavit of service in accordance with Chapter VI, Rule 17 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 in sealed cover disclosing all the basic subscriber details of Respondent No. 2-4 available with it, along with the proof of service of summons by email within 7 days of service of summons). - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slight chance you remember me from the WM mailing list, on which I was quite active nearly 20 years ago. Anyway, I found a reason to bother you again.
The recent electoral victory of Annoying Orange plunges the United States into a sea of uncertainty. He has on numerous occasions proposed or suggested dictatorial policies. Even if he does not manage to realize these plan, utter chaos is likely to be ahead. Many liberties are at stake, including those that safeguard Wikipedia's neutrality, veracity, and accessibility for everyone.
As we have seen recently in India and several times before elsewhere, countries that were formerly considered 'free' can descend into authoritarianism very quickly. No checks and balances are to be trusted if those in power purport to act with the support of 'the people', whoever that may be. In a few years, the US may no longer be a safe haven for the either WMF as a legal entity, or for the physical servers containing the information.
I would therefore like to know whether the boards has been considering a move out of the United States. Naturally, no country is entirely free of this vile brand of populism, but some countries seem relatively safe. These include Canada and Spain. A major brain drain from the United States to Canada is to be expected anyway, so you can no doubt follow some of you acquaintances.
I know I am probably not the first person suggesting this to you, but since I couldn't find this suggestion here or anywhere else, I felt compelled to make it. Just to be sure: I am a veteran Wikipedian, so I know that I normally should speak to someone else for issues concerning Wikipedia. For offline threats to the very existence of Wikipedia, however, I make an exception. Steinbach (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We will obviously do whatever is needed to keep Wikipedia safe, but I'm not that concerned about the US. The First Amendment is still very strong, and there seems to be no wavering in support for it from the justices that Trump supported. There are other elements of public policy about which I do have some concerns, particularly around Section 230 which is pretty crucial for people's ability to post openly on the Internet without premoderation, etc. But even there, I would expect any modifications would tend to be somewhat narrowly targetted. (I'd be opposed to that, but my point is that it might or might not be existential for us depending on the details.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of that Section, this news from Fortune: Trump’s pick for FCC chair wants to eliminate the law shielding social media companies from legal consequences for posts on their platforms - link to article. Not surprising to me. They might finally get their way, if they may really will it. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon12:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mzoli's has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well… that's fair. Either way, Airship is a trusted member of the community, I wouldn't expect them to have a "vendetta" against Jimbo pertaining to a GAR. EF514:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to disappoint, but I must reveal that I have sworn an oath of revenge against Jimbo and will pursue this vendetta by any means necessary, GAR notifications included. Watch this space, Mr Wales. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I recommend you take a new picture of yourself to replace the image of you in 2019 on your user page and your Wikipedia one. Thinking about it, 5 years feels like a long time ago, and it would be great to replace it with one that would reflect your recent appearance rather than one from half a decade ago. Wcamp9 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rumensz, you do not appear to be blocked. Are you talking about a different project? Either way, there will be more appropriate forums to raise questions and requests you may have. CMD (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I checked that Rumensz was blocked in April for 1 yr for (rough translation from Bulgarian) "aggressive behavior in violation of project rules"; in other words, disruptive editing and possibly incivility. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon12:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understandably, it's 2 days early and today would be George Segal's 100th birthday, but since you may have been distressed by things of late (including a hopefully resolved controversy, which needs complete closure)...
2601AC47 has given you a turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon12:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
And the reviews are in: 70%+ out of 46 so far according to Rotten Tomatoes (no consensus yet), "an exhilarating, romping sequel with songs that put Wicked to shame" (Tim Robey, The Telegraph), "reminds you that Moana is a certified star" and "another win for Disney animation" (Belen Edwards, Mashable), and 6/10 (middling) by IGN. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon17:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
